Blowback from Citizens United

[Star Man]

In an article discussing the consequences for democracy of the Citizens United decision that has ensured unlimited corporate investment in the election process, Stephen Levin and Robert Weissman write:

"The nightmare to come in 2012 is a direct result of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Through tortuous, hyper-"activist" reasoning, the Court held for the first time that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited money on behalf of individual candidates and causes. More generally, the Court signaled that the old customary restraints on election spending no longer applied.

"In the wake of Citizens United, Americans have a choice: sit back and watch our democracy erode, or work to undo the decision and restore individual rights in the face of the false notion of "corporate personhood." While there are a host of reforms that would diminish the devastating impact of Citizens United -- most notably, public financing of public elections -- there is ultimately no legislative fix for Citizens United. The 5-4 majority in the case found that corporations have a protected First Amendment right to spend unlimited money on elections. Absent the unlikely near term scenario of the Supreme Court reversing itself, we need a constitutional amendment to restore our democracy."

The "nightmare to come" will occur on a far more fundamental level than the effect of Citizens United on the electoral process, catastrophic as that is already proving to be. At its deepest level, Citizens United establishes personhood as an alienable right. The Declaration of Independence is quite clear that personhood is an unnalienable right when it says:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . ."

The Declaration also quite clearly states that biological existence is an essential quality of personhood when it says that:
(1) all men are created equal {corporations are not men, and therefor corporations do not qualify for personhood} and when it says that
(2) men are "endowed by their Creator" {corporations are created by human beings, not by a Creator, and therefore corporations do not qualify for personhood}
(3) the men produced by the creator have certain inalienable rights . . . Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. {No corporation has "life" "liberty" or the "pursuit of happiness." Only a biological organism that has attained some sense of self-aware self consciousness, a human being, can experience the qualities of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. A corporation is incapable of having these experiences, and therefore a corporation is not a person.}

When we say that personhood is no longer what the Founding Fathers said it was, an unalienable property of human ("men") biological organisms, then is uprooted, separated from the meaning enshrined in the Declaration. Now it becomes a property that is alienable, that can be separated from humanness, from biologicality, from the requirement to be capable of the experience of "life," "liberty," "happiness," or to be capable of the human quality of knowing one had an experience of those qualities and emotions.

When separated from its roots in the Declaration, personhood becomes not only something that can be transferred to an entity like a corporation, it also becomes something that can be taken away from a biological organism, a true person. If the right to vote is taken as one measure of personhood, then the first examples of the removal of personhood are evident in the process of "voter discrimination" where states require a photo ID in order to qualify to vote.

Another unforeseen consequence of the Citizens United decision was that we human, biologically based, emoting, other-directed organisms are now in direct competition for our survival with a thing that is non-human, that we created, that is non-existent in that it has no biological-based physical body, and that is also endowed by humans with eternal life and insatiable need (to maximize profits no matter what). We're now in direct competition with a thing that manifests our own powerful, unconscious will to survive.

Here's an example. The nonhuman corporation survives by selling arms that directly threaten the existence of human beings. In order to justify using the weapons it manufactures, the corporation has to take the personhood from a group of people. An enemy must be created. Thus the "terrorist" is born. When human beings become "terrorists" or "collateral damage" their personhood has been taken from them. When American citizens concerned with the abuses of power by the corporations are labeled "protestors," their personhood is taken from them. The corporation can now arrange to have a dissenter classified as a terrorist and detained indefinitely in secret without habeas corpus or other due process of law.

Corporations always act to increase their profits by eliminating the competition. Now that corporations have personhood, which used to be we humans' exclusive possession, corporate persons can consider increasing profits by eliminating competition from us human persons. One place where human persons' interests compete with corporate persons' interests is the area of voting. Corporations produce the machines that count the votes. Controversy surrounds the issue of whether corporations hacked the voting system they created in order to influence election outcomes.

Citizens United shows us that this quality of personhood that we always associated with our biological existence can be taken from us by the very entities that acquired personhood through Citizens United.

Star Man

[Star Man]

Corporate personhood and HOV lanes, corporate gender, corporate heaven and more

There is a somewhat lighter side to the issue of corporate personhood. HOV lanes bear signs stating that a car must contain "2 or more persons" in order to drive in the diamond-lane during commute hours.

So, here's my question: If a driver places the Articles of Incorporation from his LLC in the passenger seat, can he then drive in the HOV lane during commute hours?

The reasoning of the Supreme (sic) Court would seem to suggest that the Articles of Incorporation constitute a person, and the driver of the vehicle should be allowed to drive in the HOV lane during commute hours. I doubt this argument will faze a CHP officer.

What component of a Corporation is necessary and sufficient to its personhood? If it's not the Articles of Incorporation, then what does constitute the presence of a person? We know a biological person is present if there's a physical body of a Homo sapiens with a beating heart (a man recently tried to drive in the HOV lanes with a skeleton in the passenger seat claiming it was a person. It didn't work.) Would the logo of the corporation suffice? How about money? Would a check drawn on the corporation's bank account qualify?

In a related issue, if persons go to heaven and a corporation is a person, then is there a heaven for corporations that have expired? The intersection of corporate personhood and religion is fertile ground. Can corporations receive Communion? They're persons, according to the SCOTUS, and so they should be entitled to take Communion, and in fact, it would seem that denying, say, General Electric the right to consume the blood and the body of Christ constitutes an act of discrimination that may be prosecutable.

Persons have gender. What about corporations? If a corporation is a person, then it must have a gender, because all persons are gendered. Are some corporations male and others female? Can corporate persons marry as biological persons can? If so, can two male corporations marry? What does the Tea Party have to say about this?

This whole digression raises yet another issue. What is the minimum component of a biological person necessary to establish that a person is present for the purposes of driving in the HOV lanes? The Christian Right asserts that personhood begins at conception. So, if I carry a vial of frozen embryos in the passenger seat of my car, have I satisfied the requirement for "2 persons"? Can I and my frozen embryos drive in the HOV lane?

[Star Man]

Another reflection on the implications of Citizens United

Now that corporations are persons, the same federal tax laws that apply to corporations must apply as well to humans. (I am not a tax lawyer, just a citizen trying to make sense of this decision. I invite any qualified tax attorney to comment on what I'm writing.) The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment appears to guarantee this.

For example, if a corporate person can deduct its expenses for health care, then biological persons should also be able to deduct these expenses. Thus, if a corporate person provides health care to its employees, so a biological person should be able to provide health care to him/herself and should be able to deduct those expenses from gross income. All of those expenses. No filing of Schedule A.

If a corporate person provides a gym to its employees and deducts the cost, then so should a biological person. I plan to deduct the cost of my YMCA membership from my gross income this year. Seems to me this action is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. If corporations are persons just as biological organisms are persons, then biological persons should have the same protections as all persons, whether corporate or biological.

If a corporate person provides meals and entertainment for its employees and deducts the expenses itself and the employee does not have to declare the expenses as his own, then a biological person should expect the same right. Fourteen Amendment again. As a biological person, I work hard and want to reward myself periodically. Just as with a corporate person, I want to be provided with a fully deductible "employee appreciation dinner" at an expensive restaurant.

I know that corporate persons often purchase the services of "escorts" for clients and employees and then deduct these expenses as costs of doing business. Again, as a biological person, I should have the same rights as a corporate person, and so I expect to be able to hire an "escort" to accompany me to my weekly employee appreciation dinner, and I expect to be able to deduct this expense just as corporate persons do.

I know that corporate persons purchase boxes at baseball and football stadiums as perks for their employees and that these expenses are deducted. Up until Citizens United, biological persons could not deduct the expenses of tickets to Niners or Giants games. Now that has changed. I expect the same rights as a corporate person, and so I will deduct the cost of tickets to games from my gross income. I will also deduct the costs of any other perk my biological Board of Directors (ego, id, superego) authorizes, for example movies.

Just as with corporate persons, I will happily pay taxes on anything left over after I have deducted my health care costs (having no insurance I pay for everything including meds out of pocket), my gym membership, my dinning expenses, my "escort" expenses, and my other sports and entertainment expenses.

Just like corporate persons.

Star Man