| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
Same problem, Alan,
except worse: this essay is 1,878 words, or 88% overlong. You don't | | | the vigorous but economical prose that you use.
| |
<
< | Corporate Law: Protecting Corporations From Us | >
> | Corporate Law: Protecting Corporations From Us | | | | |
<
< | One of the original purposes for the corporation is that it lives past the existence of its members. They exist in perpetuity and they never die. But we should kill the corporation, at least as we know it today. More importantly, we should realize that our own creation of laws have faced us with the need to kill these non-living things. We don't necessarily learn this in law school but corporate personhood is an oxymoron. | >
> | Corporations live past the existence of their members. They exist in perpetuity and they never die but they are not people. Law schools tend to instruct us that the creation of the corporate veil and the limited liability company are two of the more important creations in the field of corporate law. This may be true. I was never instructed to ask of what, and to whom, are these creations important. Additionally, law schools teach us that corporations are treated as "persons" in the American legal system but fail to explain why this is the case. | | | | |
<
< | In studying corporate law for the past three years, I have been instructed, on more than one occasion, to believe that the creation of the corporate veil and the advent of limited liability companies are two of the more important creations in the field of corporate law. This may be true. I was never instructed to ask of what, and to whom, are these creations important? In answering this question, I have realized that these are merely tools used by corporate owners (real people) to escape their social responsibilities. These are tools that get dirty for the people who cannot stand taking responsibility for their own actions. They are more like gloves and these gloves have enough blood on them to bring the death penalty upon many of the corporations that exist in today's world.
Let's get some minor things out of the way. For the most part, in American society, the word veil brings to mind weddings and beauty. A quick Google search allows one to see the goodness associated with the word. The corporate veil is not this type of veil. It is a veil as much as Hitler was a leader: it fits the definition but not exactly the first word that comes to mind. When looking beyond the euphemism, one sees the corporate veil more as a protective shield, or for that matter, as an army of protection that fights for personhood but against persons.
For many corporations, the sole purpose of the corporate veil and the limited liability corporate form is to protect the corporation's owners from facing human consequences. The corporate veil provides the necessary distance for corporate owners to escape social responsibilities in the name of profit and as if that weren't enough, the formation of a limited liability company builds a whole new level of defense, allowing owners to commit actions through their corporations without personal repercussion. Those same actions, if committed by a natural person, could be considered criminal actions and clear violations of human rights. | >
> | In answering these questions, I have realized that these are merely tools used by corporate owners (real people) to escape their social responsibilities. For many corporations, the purpose of the corporate veil and the limited liability corporate form is to protect the corporation's owners from facing human consequences. The corporate veil provides the necessary distance for corporate owners to escape social responsibilities in the name of profit and as if that weren't enough, the formation of a limited liability company builds a whole new level of defense, allowing owners to commit actions through their corporations without personal repercussion. Those same actions, if committed by a natural person, could be considered criminal actions and at times, clear violations of human rights. | | | One would think that corporate owners would be content with a veil and limited liability protecting them from most forms of social responsibility but that was not enough to protect their profits. They desired an even stronger weapon to protect their asse[t]s. They wanted the convenience of picking and choosing when they should have the rights of natural persons. These profit-driven, often inhumane organizations have sought personhood in the court system throughout our country's history but only when it would be convenient for their profits to be deemed a natural person in the U.S. legal system. | |
<
< | Early on in our nation's history, courts and government officials were hesitant to give in to these requests. Andrew Jackson was wary, once stating that the problem with corporations is that they have "neither bodies to be kicked nor souls to be damned." But over time, as corporations gained power in American society, they not only attained the rights of natural persons but were also handed the rights of Superman without the expectations of saving the world and protecting society from evils. They were persons when they wanted to be but they were not to be punished as persons unless the courts were capable, and willing, to pierce their veil. | >
> | How Did We Get Here? | | | | |
<
< | In the U.S. court system, it has been ruled consistently and frequently that corporations are legal persons. In two well-known cases, Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United (2010), corporations quietly snatched up rights that took real people centuries of war and violence to attain, gaining the First Amendment's right to free speech, including the right to contribute to political campaigns. Look at those dates a little closer and you will see that just a few moments passed between the time that real people, African-Americans, attained the rights of natural U.S. citizens and the time that corporations attained an even stronger right in the political scheme. Citizens of the United States may have the right to vote but corporations have the right to create the electoral process through financing political campaigns and more or less cherry-picking favorable candidates. The right to make the election is much stronger than the right to vote. Yet again, these corporate owners were greedy, and decided that it was not enough for their corporations to gain the right to free speech, toss our country's democratic system into a flambé dish, and eat up our country's values as if it were just a typical dessert. | >
> | Early on in our nation's history, courts and government officials were hesitant to give in to the requests of corporations. Andrew Jackson was wary, once stating that the problem with corporations is that they have "neither bodies to be kicked nor souls to be damned." But over time, as corporations gained political power via the Industrial Revolution, they received a silver platter of rights, freeing owners from liability. | | | | |
<
< | Corporations also sought the right "not to speak" as part of their First Amendment rights. In International Dairy Foods Association et al v. Attorney General of Vermont, a Federal Court overturned a district court decision and ruled that a Vermont labeling law was unconstitutional. That law required products containing recombinant bovine growth hormone to be labeled in order to protect consumers from a dangerous genetically engineered product. The Court stated that "because the statute at issue requires appellants to make an involuntary statement whenever they offer their products for sale, we find that the statute causes the dairy manufacturers irreparable harm...he dairy manufacturer's right not to speak is a serious one that was not given proper weight by the district court." Corporations have the right not to speak when they knowingly injured real people. Profit concerns for the multinational corporation involved in the case seemed to outweigh the public health concerns of real people. If that case does not do it for you, check out the court battles between Monsanto and the People of Anniston, Alabama, where the food conglomerate, Monsanto Corporation, in the name of profit, withheld knowledge about poisoning an entire town's worth of people. These are court decisions in the greatest system of justice in the history of the world. | >
> | In the U.S. court system, it has been ruled consistently and frequently that corporations are legal persons. In two well-known modern-era cases, Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United (2010), corporations quietly snatched up rights that took real people centuries of war and violence to attain, gaining the First Amendment's right to free speech, including the right to contribute to political campaigns. Look at those dates a little closer and you will see that just a few moments passed between the time that real people, African-Americans, attained the rights of natural U.S. citizens and the time that corporations attained an even stronger right in the political scheme. Citizens of the United States may have the right to vote but corporations have the right to create the platforms for the electoral process through financing political campaigns and cherry-picking favorable candidates. The right to choose the candidates is much more powerful than the right to vote for the chosen candidates. Yet again, this was not enough protection.
Corporations also sought the right "not to speak" as part of their First Amendment rights. In International Dairy Foods Association et al v. Attorney General of Vermont, a Federal Court overturned a district court decision and ruled that a Vermont labeling law, requiring corporations to label products containing recombinant bovine growth hormone in order to protect consumers from a dangerous genetically engineered product, was unconstitutional. The Court stated that "because the statute at issue requires appellants to make an involuntary statement whenever they offer their products for sale, we find that the statute causes the dairy manufacturers irreparable harm...he dairy manufacturer's right not to speak is a serious one that was not given proper weight by the district court." Corporations gained the right not to speak even when they knowingly injure real people. Corporations' rights were deemed greater than public health concerns. One can also look to a single case brought by the People of Anniston, Alabama against the multinational corporation, Monsanto, in which the Court thought it was acceptable that the people of Anniston were poisoned by Monsanto's actions and subsequent withholding of knowledge of dangerous chemicals used in Anniston. These are court decisions in the greatest system of justice in the history of the world but this is far from justice in my eyes. | | | These "natural persons" are slowly sweeping across every inch of our country and our planet, sucking up every power they can possibly find with high human costs. When natural persons have tried this in the past, they have always failed because somebody takes a stand against them. Napoleon tried this and lost at Waterloo. When Hitler tried this, the Allied Powers fought back with nuclear weapons. But when a multinational corporation tries this, we try them in court, place a veil over their head, and even in the instances when we pierce this veil, we only do so to ask for a small amount of money from their ever-deepening pockets in the politest way possible, only to hand the money back to them by purchasing their products in the near future. That is not an efficient market according to capitalism. It is a monetary inertia that exhibits little, if any, human progress. | | | After studying corporate law for three years, I have learned that the corporation is well protected. I was never instructed to ask whom they were protected from but the answer is people. It finally struck me why I found corporate law so interesting but wanted no part of it in my career search. Corporate law takes the rights of living things and hands those same rights to entities that are treated like spoiled children. Maybe those fines are sending the corporations to their rooms but they have everything they want in those rooms. There is secrecy, security, prosperity, and profit in those rooms. That is not punishment or deterrence; that is just bad parenting. We give them cause to do whatever they want without caring about the consequences and unlike spoiled children, they have enormous voting power.
There should and could be a middle ground. A legal regime where we can use corporations for the benefit of society, maintaining control over our lives and controlling their choices to ensure that they are responsible to life. We should not give up the great things that they provide but we should minimize the harms that they bring with them. Like the spoiled child, they have to act responsibly and they must mature. Until there is proof that a corporation is a contributing and functioning member of our society, I do not think they should have the rights of real persons.
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> |
These are tools that get dirty for the people who cannot stand taking responsibility for their own actions. They are more like gloves and these gloves have enough blood on them to bring the death penalty upon many of the corporations that exist in today's world.
We don't necessarily learn this in law school but corporate personhood is an oxymoron.
Let's get some minor things out of the way. For the most part, in American society, the word veil brings to mind weddings and beauty. A quick Google search allows one to see the goodness associated with the word. The corporate veil is not this type of veil. It is a veil as much as Hitler was a leader: it fits the definition but not exactly the first word that comes to mind. When looking beyond the euphemism, one sees the corporate veil more as a protective shield, or for that matter, as an army of protection that fights for personhood but against persons. |
|