In American colonial times, corporations had been chartered by the king for the purpose of exploiting the so-called “New World” and shovelling wealth back into Europe.
They were not popular with the colonists.

Early corporate charters were very explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when. Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harm done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years.
Most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges they sought, corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good. And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.

After a series of lower court cases, the watershed moment came in 1886 when the US Supreme Court heard a case called Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Citing the 14th Amendment, and without hearing any arguments, the Supremes declared unanimously that corporations are persons deserving the law’s protection. There was no public debate about this and no law passed in Congress — corporations received the status of persons by simple judicial fiat.

A key witness before the Supreme Court in the lead up to the 1886 was former Senator Roscoe Conkling, who had helped draft the 14th amendment to the Constitution. In his evidence he claimed that it was the intention of the drafting committee that the rights to be conferred on former slaves to citizenship were meant to be equally applied to corporations.

He had lied to the Supreme Court, but by then the legal fiction of corporate personhood had defined corporates’ as natural persons across the world.

Along with this abstract existence, corporations have acquired a lot more abstract property. Ownership of land and buildings is still important, but now corporate property also includes concepts like mineral rights, drilling rights, air pollution credits, intellectual property, and even — under NAFTA — rights to future profits.

Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.

Agreed John. The US just replaced one 'imperial' type entity with another equally as omnipotent.

The rights to future profits with the implication that taxpayers continually bail out the big end of town as with the GFC and many trade agreements, just beggars belief.

When you look at two-plus centuries of US legal history, the pattern is that people acquire rights by amendment to the Constitution — a long, drawn-out, difficult process — and corporations acquire them by Supreme Court decisions.

The writers of the Australian Constitution included reference to corporation powers in Section 51 xx. Four referendums from 1911 to 1926at which the people of Australia had been asked to enlarge the scope of Commonwealth power in relations to corporations were defeated. However in 1971 the high Court overruled its 1908 decision and thereby rendered those four referendums irrelevant.

Rights for corporations, because they’re about property, is about who is excluded; Rights for human beings, is about who is included.

Once corporations had crossed the line, they proceeded to pursue the Bill of Rights through more Supreme Court cases.
In 1893 they were assured 5th Amendment protection of due process.
In 1906 they got 4th Amendment search and seizure protection.
In 1925 it was freedom of the press and speech.
In 1976 the Supremes determined that money is equal to speech, and since corporate persons have First Amendment rights, they can basically contribute as much money as they want to political parties and candidates.
We find ourselves in a time when corporations have amassed enormous power and wealth, and control nearly every aspect of our lives, because they masquerade — under the law at least — as one of us.

Those who wished to end slavery, for example, worked for many years collecting information, refining their analysis, and debating among themselves. They came to understand the issue as one of human rights and that the whole institution of slavery was fundamentally wrong.

If you look at corporate personhood the same way, you will see that corporate personhood was wrongly given — not by the People, but by Supreme Court judges. Corporate personhood is a bad thing, because it allowed an artificial entity to obtain the rights of people

Interesting.

But it all seems to hinge on one premise:

>>In his evidence [Senator Roscoe Conkling] claimed that it was the intention of the drafting committee that the rights to be conferred on former slaves to citizenship were meant to be equally applied to corporations. He had lied to the Supreme Court<<

Do you have any evidence that he lied?

Very interesting post.

However it is highly dubious that the granting of an exclusive monopoly could ever be justified on the ground of the public good. (The granting of monopolies came in vogue, not because it conduced to the public good, but because it was one of the Crown's main and only ways of raising revenue in the 16th and 17th centuries after the decline of feudal tenures and before the advent of the modern tax base. Monopoly-granting is alive and well in its modern form of occupational licensing btw.)

Also in terms of modern political philosophy, based on democratic premises, how could you see your way clear to concluding that the old kings had the capacity to decide for themselves that something was for the public good anyway?

Pelican, governments bailing out the big end of town is not in the nature of corporations, it is in the nature of governments. They did it before corporations became the dominant form of business association, and they would do it whatever form of business association were dominant.

John, suppose corporations - by which I mean grant of limited liability and separate legal personality to an association - were abolished. This would still enable entrepreneurs to carry on in partnerships and joint stock companies. The advocates of corporation say the disadvantage would be the loss of all the benefits from entrepreneurial ventures that would not otherwise take place!

The advantage would be that entrepreneurs would be unable to privatise the profits and socialise the losses of their activities. The benefits lost, would be precisely those arising from activities that would not have taken place if the entrepreneurs had had to undertake the full losses. In other words, why shouldn't entrepreneurs bear their losses as well as enjoy their profits?

Could you please paint us a picture of what you think society and economy would look like if corporations were abolished?

"...governments bailing out the big end of town is not in the nature of corporations, it is in the nature of governments."

True but the corporations lobby for those policies and exert huge influence on governments. Just look at the influence of the armaments industry in the US and those contractors that feed off the war, and we would be naive to think that war is not only a strategic decision but an economic one. Ultimately governments need to grow a spine and corporations need to live or die by the principles of business.

I don't know why governments keep bailing out companies while blindly mouthing and extolling the virtues of free trade. I can understand if not agree with the thinking such as the subsidising of some industries (like the car industry) in an effort to save jobs. It just grates when at the same time governments keep telling us free trade is good for us then contradict that stance by subsidising industries because of the impact of free trade and access to cheap labour.

I don't think the author of this subject talked about abolishing corporations. He was discussing the status and rights of corporations under the US Constitution.

The provision for a safety net for a guarantee of future profits is one of the worst aspects of the 'socialisation of debt-privatisation of profit' scenarios.

It is a cake and eating it too situation.