Corporate personhood. It is such a hot button issue. Liberals think reversing the Citizens United case will save America's future; conservatives think it is an obvious and evolution of capitalism and democracy. Politically intelligent people from every walk are forced into one of the two camps. Is the answer so simple? Will legislating against corporate personhood keep corporate dollars out of politics? Will continuing to build upon pro-corporate personhood legislation keep the capitalistic train strongly moving forward, shrinking the income gap?
This all really began with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866. What was the purpose of the amendment? The Equal Protection Clause. The clause prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. While the loose term "person" was used, the context that birthed the term obviously pointed to its use in connection with "negroes." Even though the true meaning becomes obvious with a little research, America has been attempting to stretch the meaning of it and the amendment ever since.
The Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case, one about tax on fences, is the genesis of the corporate personhood debate as it exists in its current American form. Interestingly enough, corporate personhood was not the basis of the court's decision, as delivered by Justice John Marshall Harlan. However, before the opinion was read, Chief Justice Morrison Waite stated that "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does." Furthermore, Justice Stephen Johnson Field, sustained one of the special defenses. The sustain was not the legal basis of the final ruling, but it aided in lending corporate personhood legitimacy in the years to come. The sustained special defense read "That the provisions of the Constitution and laws of California in respect to the assessment for taxation of the property of railway corporations operating railroads in more than one county, are in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution insofar as they require the assessment of their property at its full money value without making deduction, as in the case of railroads operated in one county and of other corporations and of natural persons, for the value of the mortgages covering the property assessed, thus imposing upon the defendant unequal burdens, and to that extent denying to it the equal protection of the laws."
The basis of the final opinion was that a portion of the taxes (as put forward by the prosecution) were assessed and enforced illegally, essentially nullifying the prosecution's case. From the court opinion, this read: "The case, as presented to the court, was therefore one in which the plaintiff sought judgment for an entire tax arising upon an assessment of different kinds of property as a unit, such assessment including property not legally assessable by the State Board of Equalization, and the part of the tax assessed against the latter property not being separable from the other part. Upon such an issue, the law, we think, is for the defendant."
In layman's terms, this case arose because the State Board of Equalization did not fully comprehend the complex bureaucracy in which it worked. It tried to tax Southern Pacific Railroad's fences as if they were part of the roadway when a previous court case had already ruled that fences were not. California law forbade the Board of Equalization from assessing "improvements" to infrastructure, which fences were considered to be. Tax on fences, by law, had to be assessed by a different body than the Board of Equalization.
Another facet of this argument is that Southern Pacific Railroad was building a rail network at the order of the US Government by way of an act of Congress. California helped to ensure that this order was carried out efficiently by passing a bill in 1864 that stated the following:
"To enable said company (Southern Pacific Railroad) more fully and completely to comply with and perform the provisions and conditions of said act of Congress, the said company, their successors and assigns, are hereby authorized and empowered, and the right, power, and privilege is hereby granted to, conferred upon, and vested in them to construct, maintain, and operate the said railroad and telegraph line not only in the State of California, but also in the said territories lying east of and between said state and the Missouri River, with such branches and extensions of said railroad and telegraph line, or either of them, as said company may deem necessary or proper, and also the right of way for said railroad and telegraph line over any lands belonging to this state, and on, over, and along any streets, roads, highways, rivers, streams, water, and watercourses, but the same to be so constructed as not to obstruct or destroy the passage or navigation of the same, and also the right to condemn and appropriate to the use of said company such private property, rights, privileges, and franchises as may be proper, necessary, or convenient for the purposes of said railroad and telegraph[…]hereby confirming to and vesting in said company all the rights, privileges, franchises, power, and authority conferred upon, granted to, and vested in said company by said act of Congress, hereby repealing all laws and parts of laws inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this act, or the rights and privileges herein granted."
Ostensibly, the above mentioned acts had no bearing on the decision of the court. However, I imagine, with the court justices being so obviously and painfully human, that such close ties between the defendants and the US Government played at least a subconscious psychological factor in their decision. So, while the decision was not based on corporate personhood, it became an institutionalized de facto understanding that corporations were to be treated as persons in some instances.
In sum, the Fourteenth Amendment, meant to institutionalize de jure equality for former black slaves (not for women, I'd like to point out), became a tool for corporations and the greedy. Unsurprisingly, corporations at that time were owned and operated by rich, white men and court justices were rich white men too. The court decision did not even rest on grounds of corporate personhood, but remarks by a justice recorded it as such in the annals of history. Finally, the case arose because of a confusing bureaucracy and incompetence on the part of the Board of Equalization to understand bureaucratic intricacies.
This is just one court case. Myriad cases affecting corporate personhood and campaign finance have occurred since 1886. Many of them include similar bureaucratic blunders, power hungry judges, economically motivated businessmen, a meddling government, and amorality all around. People expect to undo this by reversing the Citizens United case? "You have to start somewhere," many will say. True. But, I believe we need to do something different. Something far more drastic. Something verging on revolutionary.
