On Corporate Personhood and Animal Rights
Original Lambskin (ouch!) United States Constitution (Preamble)
I don’t think it’s presumptuous to claim that the majority of people reading this right now are against the notion of corporate personhood. (If you’re for it, I’d very much like to hear from you!)
In “Really Simple: We Need to Get Rid of the Perverse Notion of ‘Corporate Personhood’,” Alternet’s Joshua Holland tells us that People for the American Way
is mounting a campaign to preserve our nominal democracy by passing a Constitutional amendment giving Congress the power to regulate corporate campaign money. It’ll be an uphill battle — the last Amendment to the Constitution, the 27th, was enacted 18 years ago; it had originally been submitted in 1789.
This initiative is in response to last week’s Supreme Court ruling in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which, as Alternet’s Liliana Segura writes in “Supreme Court’s ‘Radical and Destructive’ Decision Hands Over Democracy to the Corporations“:
overturned the federal ban on corporate contributions to political campaigns, ruling that forbidding corporations from spending money to support or undermine political candidates amounts to censorship. Corporations, the court ruled, should enjoy the same First Amendment rights as individuals.
The President of PFAW, Michael Keegan, issued a statement that included:
Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court strikes at the core of our democracy. The framers could never have imagined, and surely didn’t desire, a system in which corporations could pour literally billions of dollars into elections and hold virtually limitless influence over the fate of our elected representatives. Such a system does not promote free speech; it mocks it.
I agree with all of this and think that the personhood status of corporations, combined with the lack of restrictions on campaign finance, makes it virtually impossible for elected officials to act in the best interests of the citizens they are supposed to represent. When I look at what has occurred in this country in the past couple of decades, it appears that–and I’m being conservative here by not claiming a different intent–it’s too tempting for the average elected official to take corporate money. Perhaps it’s the personality profile of people who go into politics, but it certainly seems like too many elected officials are in it for a possible career, and for the power and perks, rather than for their constituents.
As for animals, corporate personhood has only made their situation worse, as it’s the people lobbying for agribusiness who are “buying” the politicians. Here’s the question: Would stripping corporations of their personhood be a step toward personhood for sentient nonhumans? I don’t see how we’d go from personhood for corporations to personhood for sentient nonhumans, so shouldn’t all animal rights activists support eliminating personhood for corporations?
Joshua Holland’s sample amendment looks like this:
SECTION 1. Citizenship in the United States shall be conferred only on human beings. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that citizenship or the legal incidents thereof be granted to corporations, partnerships, proprietorships or trusts.
When I saw “human beings” I thought: That does not bode well for nonhumans. I don’t like that at all. Do you have a suggestion for different wording? Do you think that this is one area where we should accept a compromise as an intermediate step? It’s not as if sentient nonhumans are getting personhood anytime soon (though dolphins might, and I explored that a couple of weeks ago here). And corporate personhood is on the national radar here in the US therefore there is a real chance that at least this reignited debate will result in change this decade if citizens get angry and vocal and involved enough.
What do you think?
—
Photo by Flickr user FrogMiller
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
ah, exactly as you said: the change to Holland’s wording could simply be “sentient beings’ rather than “human beings” with some sort of clarification that if said being cannot actually breathe, it is not sentient.
I’d also like to add something that’s been bothering me about the AR movement in terms of corporatism over the past 13 years. Since I first became aware of corporations buying out and smaller veg companies selling out to them I’ve been extremely troubled by the lack of understanding of activists of just what that means.
In 1997 I found out that ConAgra bought out Lightlife, so while that small company still works on its own, it is a subsidiary of a corporation that not only engages in factory farming, but also grows feed (probably genetically altered) for all animal farming; it is a huge supporter of genetic engineering and has been called to task as part of the problem plaguing farmer suicides in India. When you buy Lightlife, you support ConAgra. When you buy Silk or White Wave, you support Dean Foods (dairy industry as well as grower of soybeans in China and Brazil = habitat destruction). When you buy Hain Celestial you are supporting a monster of a corporation that has as its investors as “diverse” a group as Disney, Monsanto, McDonald’s, Wal-Mart and Lockheed Martin (or they did at one time; admittedly I haven’t researched this much recently). French Meadow is owned by Farm Bureau, one of the absolute worst criminals against farmed animals, and Coca Cola owns Odwalla.
Hershey’s, which has been taken to task for its use of slave-labor cocoa, owns Dagoba, and you might notice that since that takeover most Dagoba chocolate now contains dairy, even, if I’m not mistaken, the dark chocolate. This seems to be a trend as well: buy out a veg company and add meat or, if a product had been vegan, add dairy. An interesting tidbit is that Red Star nutritional yeast, that thing hailed by vegans everywhere as our B12 savior, is produced by a company that produces yeast and grains primarily for “livestock” feed. Ironic? And Earth Balance? There’s no way they can guarantee that the palm oil they use is sustainably harvested (with the possible exception of the organic); orangutan and native human habitats are being destroyed so we in the west can have our vegan brand of butter without hydrogenation. Earth Balance is owned by a corporation that kills krill en masse for their Smart Balance brands, which contain fish. Now, I understand the desperate attempts to get people to adopt veganism and the fact that if we have substitutes that taste like the dairy and meat food people are used to they’ll be more likely to change. However for hardened activists and those committed to cross-movement change, I wonder at our unwillingness to accept that even vegan foods can be harmful to non-human animals, to human animals and to the environment.
I digress, but I suppose I would like people to see that those in a position to buy alternatives to products produced and grown by these (and other) corporations would be wise to do so before we run out of options. People seem to fail to understand that when a veg*n company gets bought out by a multinational it’s not because the multinational wants to create a vegan world; they are trying to buy up the market to control the food market. I realize that may sound paranoid, but if you look at organic standards, for example, as soon as multinational corporate board members started appearing on the regulatory boards, standards diminished. There is no way I will believe that a corporation, which has as its primary purpose making profit, wants to create a harmonious and kind world. These corporations want to eliminate competition and they’re doing a mighty fine job of it.
Again, I think I digressed but I wanted to comment on this in context of corporations. They may be playing a bigger role than we realize already, but this recent development now makes it legal. I think that’s criminal.
Wendy,
When I read the latest in the Kraft/Cadbury drama http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/business/global/20kraft.html?scp=1&sq=kraft&st=cse I thought: “That’s my next post!” and then promptly forgot. I was going to address exactly what you’re referring to. I think I’ll still do it, but I’ve got some research to do first. I most frequently use the examples of The Body Shop and Tom’s of Maine, which used to be favorite companies of mine until they were bought by (*allowed themselves to be sold to*) corporations I don’t respect and that test on animals. I know that the founders/owners would say that the decision brings the values of their companies to the mainstream and that’s a benefit, but I can’t get beyond my skepticism about that, not to mention the reality that a corporation I don’t respect would be getting my money.
I’m the holdout who doesn’t agree with your statement “There is no way I will believe that a corporation, which has as its primary purpose making profit, wants to create a harmonious and kind world.” I’d like to believe that there are corporations who have the triple bottom line (people, planet, profits) in their mission, and I’d like to profile some of them and I’d welcome any suggestions from any readers.
Mary,
In reference to my statement about corporations, I was not clear. I mean the big ones, Monsanto, WalMart, Dean Foods, ConAgra, Cargill, Hain-Celestial & Heinz, Farm Bureau, Procter and Gamble, etc.
I’m sure there are some smaller ones, like SoyBoy, who strive to maintain ethics, and I forgot to mention some of the companies I’m either pleased with or buy from. Mostly it’s the latter because very few of these companies maintain a vegan ethic, and even when they do often they use lots of sugar (which I need to research but is, from what I’ve heard, extremely noxious to produce) and/or palm oil.
Luna and Larry’s (coconut milk based ice cream. Beats the hell out of So Delicious!)
Amy’s (they use an awful lot of dairy and sugar, though, but their pasta sauce is the best)
Alvarado Street Bakery
Shells and Chreese (they were bought out by Edward and Sons which uses palm oil in practically everything, unfortunately)
So Delicious is okay
Tofurky
Soy Boy
Eden (is not vegetarian though; they’ve bought into that macrobiotic belief that fish is a food and good for humans to eat, and they sell dried fish)
I’m sure I have more stuff sitting around my house that I can’t think of at the moment while I’m at work, but it’s interesting to note that ten and fifteen years ago there were many more options to buy vegan processed food or even partly processed (canned beans for example) without supporting big nasty corporations.
Is there a difference between a corporation and a company? Lagusta (chocolates) has a triple bottom line, and a recent blog post explores exactly how difficult it is to run a business like that. (i.e., the issues are so complicated as to seem close to impossible at times.) She’s pretty much a one person business though, I think.
PS Wendy,
I like the idea of “sentient beings” and would support it but I don’t think it has a chance of succeeding and I think the issue in question does. And I don’t think that stripping corporations of personhood without mentioning animals is analogous to welfare reform (as in: it doesn’t address the problem or even makes it worse).
But that’s me, and I’m sure there are plenty of people who disagree and it would be great to hear from them (you?).
Corporations need to be non-persons no matter what; that’s a goal I support even if animals don’t get included in this round.
oh yes, I agree that the personhood needs to be taken away from corporations; I may have misunderstood your question. I don’t think there are any plans to include animals in any kinds of rights or laws anytime soon, and in fact even humans who support non-humans have restrictions on our rights.
So no, I agree with you that this would be a first step (one we should not even have to take!). I thought you were just asking for ideal wording, but I didn’t realize you meant something that could be used to protect non-human animals immediately.
That I have no idea about!
I like the idea of “sentient beings” and would support it but I don’t think it has a chance of succeeding and I think the issue in question does. And I don’t think that stripping corporations of personhood without mentioning animals is analogous to welfare reform (as in: it doesn’t address the problem or even makes it worse).
Generally, I’m skeptical of claims that welfare reforms further entrench animal use in society, thus making animal liberation a more remote/difficult possibility, seeing as speciesism is ubiquitous – but in this case, this strikes me as a valid concern, since it’s an amendment to the Constitution. (And the amendment wouldn’t just fail to mention animals, but specifically exclude them, i.e., “Citizenship in the United States shall be conferred only on human beings.”)
As Joshua Holland notes, amending the constitution = BIG. DEAL. (Cripes, we can’t even get the ERA passed!)
Personally, I’d rather see public financing of elections, period. Then everyone’s “First Amendment” right to buy politicians is violated.
Deb,
Lagusta could be a sole proprietorship, in which case no, she’s not a corporation. Or she could be an S corp, C corp or LLC. Here’s a great chart that differentiates. Note the liability part. http://www.themoneyalert.com/Corp-Entity-Table.html
I am both a vegan and a (libertarian) capitalist so I hope I can offer a different perspective on this. I think any amendment to the Constitution to that limits citizenship to only human beings is an overreaction to a misunderstanding of what corporate personhood means.
Giving corporations “personhood” is what allows corporations to enter into contracts, own property, and be taxed. It also serves as a way to create a business without risking one’s own property. In order for our modern press to function, private corporations must be allowed to print what they want without government restriction, ie, the First Amendment. The way I look at it, corporate “personhood” is an extension of the rights of the people running the business.
Instead, I would focus on improving the election system, perhaps with public elections, instant run offs, or something else I’m not imaginative to come up with. And if we do add anything to the constitution concerning rights, first, a privacy amendment, and then maybe before I pass on in this world, something about other sentient creatures.
but what makes you think it’s good for, say, ExxonMobil to own property? Can you see them buying up that watefront property in Alaska. As for paying taxes — I’ll believe it when I see it. We’re constantly subsidizing corporate asses. This is simply another boost to the corporate welfarist state we live in.
As for unions and non-profits’ being included I’m still against it. A non-sentient being has no right to be regarded as a human with more protections than most citizens are entitled to.
As a libertarian capitalist, I oppose all corporate welfare. No disagreement there. But without some of the same rights as individuals, I don’t see how corporations could function, if they didn’t have a right to own property (not just land, but equipment, ideas, capital), free speech (how else does a newspaper function), or right to due process under the law (when being sued).
I’d like to also add that in the context of the Supreme Court decision, unions and non-profits were included as having free speech right.
Hi Shane,
Corporations are already legal entities and, like sole proprietorships, can engage in all kinds of commercial activities including enter into contracts.
Here are the items that irk me most: The reality that personhood wasn’t actually ever debated and decided, but was accidentally put in the transcript by a clerk.
The fact that corporations get the perks, but not the real-life consequences, of personhood. I see corporate personhood as a way to shirk responsibility and liability, minimize the power of individuals, and influence government–because those have been the results. That’s not a political or emotional reaction, it’s one based on observing what has occurred. I’d love to be able to say something different.
Check out leftist economist Michael Perelman’s take:
http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/the-hypocrisy-of-corporate-personhood/
Thanks, md.
I couldn’t resist linking to Stephen Colbert’s take from his “The Word,” and also his interview w/Jeffrey Toobin from a bit ago regarding corporate personhood & corporate contributions: http://politicalirony.com/2009/09/17/colbert-explains-corporate-personhood/
Funny stuff. Also not so funny.
I had two reactions when I first heard the news of the SCOTUS decision: 1) not a surprise and 2) anger. However, since the ruling I’ve read a couple of discussions about it and am, frankly, a bit more confused on this issue. Most notably, I would recommend reading the comments here: http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/
As an admitted Left of liberal and politically jaded person, I have to say that corporations have been running this country for a very, very long time. All of the uber corporations (energy, agrabusiness, pharma, Wall Street, insurance industries, etc) have contributed billions of dollars to elected officials on both sides of the aisle. IMHO, our elected officials are owned by corporate America and we have been a country of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations for most of our history. There’s a great article on truthdig, at this link: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/democracy_in_america_is_a_useful_fiction_20100124/
We, either as a country or a world, are so far from accepting simply the sentience and value of nonhuman animals that I think considering including them in the proposed amendment is a pipe dream, at best. Society only pays lip service to accepting women and people of color as “persons.” The only thing that I’m certain of at this point is that the system is screwed up and I have no clue how to fix it or if it can even be fixed. I’m just glad that I’m nearly 60 years old and, hopefully, won’t have to face a Mad Max world that seems all too inevitable. I think I need to go hug a couple of cats now to cheer myself up.
Kelly,
“this strikes me as a valid concern, since it’s an amendment to the Constitution.”
That’s exactly why I am concerned–it’s SUCH a big deal, and then we’d have to do it again for sentient nonhumans! I’m torn because I don’t like what has happened due to corporate personhood so I’m behind eliminating it, YET what if it compromises the quest for rights for animals? I’d hate to get behind something that I really believe in only to have it backfire for something else I really believe in that is seemingly unrelated!
Corporate personhood is inevitable. They already “own” the political system – This bit of legislation only makes it transparent and blatantly “in your face”.
But doesn’t this follow the trend anyway? Ipods, vacuum cleaners, and shampoos can be “loved”… And the big auto makers? They like to advertise that the drivers will “feel the soul of the car” and equate the engine with “muscle, *spirit* and heart”. Meanwhile the sentient beinga who actually could/do possess these qualities… go unseen and unknown.
Animals as machines… And businesses as people – Let the apocalypse begin.
It’s hard to say “corporate personhood” with a straight face. Though initially I did feel torn as you did about hindering progress in the quest for animal rights. But on deeper reflection, I think it’d just be giving in to the idea of “necessary evil.”
In 1992 Switzerland legally recognized nonhuman animals as “beings.” But then in 1999 that amendment was totally rewritten in its constitution. AR gains can easily be overturned so compromises we make might only be good intentions that eventually go astray. Most European countries consider animals sentient beings, but that hasn’t stopped any of them from murdering and eating animals. No country in the world advocates respecting all animals by not killing them.
Anyway, unless personhood for nonhuman animals means total liberation from under human control, it won’t be a meaningful advance in justice for the animals. And humans relinquishing control is perhaps the biggest hurdle.
Steve Jones, a professor in genetics, says humans are “unique” beyond their biology and suggests that human rights would be diminished if the rights of nonhuman animals were recognized. He implies that “humans come first.” Unfortunately, his sentiments are typical in many recent essays. His aversion to personhood for animals is ironic because through his own studies on DNA, Jones does believe that *all* living beings share a common ancestor.
Regardless of laws and personhood status, until our society changes its myopic view of animals as “lesser than human” and “others” to be mined as resources, oppression will continue.
When Howard Zinn was asked to comment on the Supreme Court decision, he basically summed it up for me:
“Liberals get excited about things like that as if they signal a dramatic change. No, the corporations ran our elections before the decision and will do so now — just with a fig leaf of ‘legality.’ The designation of corporations as ‘persons’ which started in 1886 is just proof of how our legal system, the Constitution, the courts have always been tools of the wealthy classes.” http://www.truthout.org/howard-zinn-the-people-speak-supreme-court-and-haiti56402
When I copied this quote, little did I know how little time we had left with Howard Zinn still gracing our world with his inspirational presence. His death is a true loss.
Fifteen minutes ago, after reading several Howard Zinn quotes in “tweets” written by people who had never uttered his name before, I wrote a long comment about people who only talk/tweet/blog about famous people on the day of their death or birth. And how this inanity can be extended to certain “topics of the day” (e.g., how the AR community was happily blogging away about climate change during the summit in Copenhagen, and how there now seems to be a giant brain fart regarding it). But I decided to file that rant away in my archive. The number of rants I have these days has diminished considerably, and the ones I do have I mostly keep to myself. But once in a while a little bit of a rant will leak out in the form of a small inadvertent (hopefully positive) hint. :-)
I for one, Jeannie, am grateful for the link. Yesterday I visited The Progressive online and Dr. Zinn’s website, reading several opinion pieces he had written. Little did I know at the time that he had passed away. I discovered that late last night and was deeply saddened by his passing. Thank you for reminding me of his insight and intelligent commentary.
Connie, I am glad that the link in my comment led you back to reading more of Howard Zinn’s writing. :-)
The various articles/blogs (in the AR community and beyond) revolving around the “anniversary” of Gandhi’s death a couple days ago reminded me of my comment here, and made me smile (maybe even chuckle) this time, rather than fume. That’s what I call progress ~ ha ha. :-)