Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Courts Endow Corporations with Unalienable Rights

By Jeffrey Kaplan, ReclaimDemocracy.org. Posted February 12, 2008.


Corporations are increasingly accorded the rights of legal persons -- if only Guantanamo detainees could be so lucky.
halliburton
Advertisement

In evaluating allegations that U.S. military forces deprived four British men of human rights during two years they were held captive in Guantanamo Bay prison, a U.S. appeals court found an innovative way to let the Bush administration off the hook. Two of three judges ruled the men -- because they are not U.S. citizens and, technically, were not imprisoned in the U.S. -- were not legally "persons" and, therefore, had no rights to violate.

While those judges were defying common sense and decency by denying legal personhood to living human beings, an appeals court in Boston has been reviewing an April 2007 decision by Federal Judge Paul Barbadoro that engaged in a different form of judicial activism -- granting human rights to corporations.

Barbadoro struck down a New Hampshire law that prevented pharmaceutical corporations from learning exactly what drugs doctors prescribe and how much they prescribe. The law aims to protect doctors and, indirectly, their patients, from drug companies pressuring doctors to choose their products.

The judge's grounds? He claims corporations, as legal persons, have "free speech rights" that would be infringed by such a measure.

The real issue in these cases (Maine recently passed a similar law) isn't free speech at all; it's manipulation and control. The drug salespeople only will decide what to say after poking into the doctors' prescription records. Under the guise of protecting speech, Judge Barbadoro denied both legitimate privacy rights of doctors and key protections to ensure patients are prescribed drugs based on their medical situation, not pressure applied to their physician.

Taken together, these two rulings are a perplexing and dangerous development. The founding principle of our country is right in the Declaration of Independence: all people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." It is not for judges to decide who is and who is not a human being.

Nor should the courts play Creator by endowing legal constructs like corporations with human rights. Our constitutional rights exist to prevent large, powerful institutions -- whether governments, corporations, or other entities -- from oppressing us humans.

For too long a strange dichotomy has persisted between principled people on the political left and right wings. The left wing often warns against the growing power of business corporations. The right wing complains the left ignores the overweening power of the government and is "anti-business."

But many people on both sides have been seeing only part of the same elephant. What's happening is a merger of corporations and state.

Already there are corporate "black holes" for human rights that rival government affronts like Guantanamo. Under the Bush administration's legal framework for Iraq during its occupation, the Iraqi government wields no authority over Blackwater corporation's security guards.

And it's not clear the U.S. government does either. As a result, we may never see anyone punished for Blackwater's wanton killing of Iraqi civilians in Baghdad last September.

Then there's the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, an American employee of Halliburton/KBR in Iraq who claimed she was gang raped by co-workers in 2005. U.S. officials reportedly handed the evidence to KBR, whereupon the evidence apparently disappeared. Nobody in Congress, Democrat or Republican, has been able to persuade the Bush administration to reveal what it has done about the case since then.

Halliburton/KBR, like Blackwater, apparently enjoys the rights of a person, but not the responsibilities.

The danger of "corporate personhood" is a bit like global warming; people have warned us of the threat for decades only to go unheeded because the dire consequences seemed far-fetched.

But look at what's happened to the First Amendment. Corporations use it to strike down laws clearly designed to protect citizens, even while courts deny prisoners the right to know what evidence the government is using against them. It's time for alarm.

We should take offense whenever we hear the dangerous notion of "corporate citizenship" promoted. Soon, the only citizens with real power in the United States may be the corporate kind.

Editor's note: shortly after completing this article, we learned of this shocking story: Judge Allows Halliburton to Force Sexual Assault Case Out of Court

© 2007 ReclaimDemocracy.org

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: guantanamo, corporations, rights, free speech, halliburton, courts

Jeffrey Kaplan writes for Reclaim Democracy, a nonprofit organization working to restore democratic authority over corporations.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Corporations are Composed of Individual Persons
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Feb 13, 2008 12:51 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Denying corporations the rights of a person inherently denies the individual persons making up these corporations their rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Horseshit! Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: You told me Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: How do individuals get their voices heard? Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Read the site much? Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
gonetcm
Posted by: gonetcm on Feb 14, 2008 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Funny, I thought the whole idea of becoming incorporated was so that no "individual person" is held responsible--just the corporation. And we all know how that goes, corps file bankruptcy and never take any responsibility. Now they want all the rights of a person while having none of the responsibility. This is a true sham. They have no right to this information.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: gonetcm Posted by: StrayCat
» RE: gonetcm Posted by: Doubtom
If corporations are persons
Posted by: LouisFallert on Feb 14, 2008 3:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if corporations are persons, then they should be covered by the 13th Amendment.
FREE THE CORPORATIONS!
No longer should corporations bear the onus of being mere property.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Corporations are Property BUT... Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
Screw the "stacked" Supreme Court
Posted by: Doubtom on Feb 14, 2008 8:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's all ignore the Supreme Court from now on, just like IdiotBush ignores the laws of the land. IdiorBush is setting the example for anarchy and we should dutifully follow suit.

IMPEACH THE BASTARDS!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corporations endowed with the rights of human individuals is
Posted by: thekidde on Feb 15, 2008 10:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
fascism - something the Bushies and neo-cons, corporatists, oligarchs, multi-nationalists have been working toward since Milton Friedman and the Chicago Idiots came to town. Fuck 'em when we take our country back - eat the rich.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The good old days
Posted by: Koondog on Feb 15, 2008 9:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There was a time before 1886 here in Amerika when the people in the locale where a corporation was incorporated could take action for corporate malfeasance by revoking the offending corporation's charter, which essentially was a death penalty for that "entity." Revoking the charter dissolved the corporation. Since 1886 when some corrupt judge ruled that the Southern Pacific Railroad had basically the same rights as a natural person and the equally corrupt Supreme Court let that ruling stand, corporations have run amok. That's the legal basis of the full nelson that corporations have humans in today, as I understand it. A corporation doesn't really exist except by virtue of it's charter and even then it is, like our Constitution, "just a goddam piece of paper." It only operates on the decision of natural persons, i.e., the guys who call the shots. A movement to restore the rights of people to dissolve corporate charters for just cause would level the playing field again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corpeple
Posted by: scootenat65 on Feb 18, 2008 12:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do I hear the matrix knocking?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And money "talks"
Posted by: luckypuck on Feb 19, 2008 7:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Add to this charade the legal notion that MONEY is speech. This one is most responsible for the corporate corruption of Congress. But money isn't speech. I squeeze every dollar, but never even hear it squeal, much less protest verbally (it just goes quietly).

When corporations claim that regulating campaign contributions and other bakshish is trampling their freedom of speech, they're playing fast and loose with the facts. Here's why: On every bill (and I'm copying this off one right now) is the statement, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." Legal tender means you tender or offer it in exchange for something, a commodity, a service, easy access, it's all a debt.

So, money is a medium of exchange; that's not the same as speech. Not even close. When corporate heads give money to our representatives they are doing what the money says it does, making an exchange.

So, what, pray tell, do our representatives have to exchange? Their holy presence? No. Their scintillating conversation? No. Their good looks? No. What possible commodity do they have to exchange? Here it is, folks: Only their VOTES. Exchanging money for votes is graft, payola, bribery and it's corruption and it's illegal, it's a felony, it's bad, they're not supposed to do it.

Well, but you know, when they've "exchanged" a representative or two or ten, their lawyers can pretty much say the law says what they want it to say and the "exchanged" representatives vote "YES!" Probably, "Hell, YES!"

But, surely our fair and impartial judicial system will knock them back, right? Not to worry, they just aim their special and exclusive form of free speech at the judicial system and, in exchange, it, too, gives their conglomerate that which was supposedly reserved, as it specifically says in the Constitution, to individual citizens. Wow! What a great system, no? Well, no. Not for us guys, us individual citizens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]