We are called Legion, for we are many.

Yesterday I watched the documentary The Corporation, which I have been meaning to watch for some time. I guess it worked out well in that it was timed to follow the Supreme's Court's supremely ridiculous decision to allow corporations unlimited freedom to contribute to political campaigns. Of course, this Supreme Court is not the first to treat the corporation as a person but it grabbed that precedence and ran with it.

With my limited understanding of latin, provided by my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the word "corporate" comes from the latin root "corporare" which means, among other things, to be given a body. In other words, the group of people who form the corporation are "given a body" in the legal sense, allowing them to make decisions as a group which affect the group. So, in this sense, the legal decision makes sense. When the corporation makes a bad decision, the corporation is responsible. When the corporation succeeds, all involved succeed.

And that is fine from a legal sense in terms of business. But how much do the bill of rights apply to the corporation and can the rights enjoyed by the members of the corporation be extended to the corporation as a whole?

Okay, the First Amendment. Free speech obviously belongs to the corporation. They can say what they like, within bounds, and no one should limit that right. They can petition the government for redress of grievances, which they should be allowed to do, as necessary. The Second Amendment seems to make the case for Xe (neé Blackwater) but let us nip that in the bud. We have a militia. We don't need coporate militias. The Third Amendment is kind of out-dated but I guess it protects them from having to house soldiers in their corporate offices. The Fourth Amendment applies. You can't raid corporate offices without a court order, well and good. The members of the corporation deserve a trial by a grand jury for capital crimes as per the Fifth Amendment, no one would argue about that. The Sixth also applies since corporations get a trial by jury. Same with Seven, Eight, Nine, and Ten.

I guess.

But think about it:

Corporations have the right to free speech but they can't lie. A cigarette company can't print a label on their cigarettes (anymore) that says they are good for you. A beer company can't run ads that say beer will make you thin. Of course, they find ways around this problem but the fact remains that they, like us, have to obey the law. Sometimes. Occasionally.

While some corporations are trying to have their own armies a lá the computer game Syndicate, it is not and should not be a legal entity...unless you are Blackwater...or Triple Canopy...or any other company who employs a mercenary army. This is not what is meant by the Second Amendment. Corporations may bare arms...but only on casual Friday.

The Third seems unnecessary in today's world but I guess it does count for corporations. Like Halliburton. I guess if anyone tries to sue them for electrocuting soldiers in the shower, they can just say they weren't supposed to have to house soldiers anyway...

The Fourth counts and I can't refute it. We need the rule of law. Even when dealing with jerks. I feel the same about detainees in Guantanamo.

But for the last bit...

When has an entire corporation, executives and stockholders and all employees, been held responsible for a crime? Do we have courtrooms and prisons big enough to hold an entire corporation? Usually, when a coporation is being investigated, it is one or two executives and not the entire corporation. But that means that decisions made on behalf of the corporation, whether helpful or harmful to the corporation, are done by individuals and not by the corporation. If we cannot treat the corporation as one body in criminal investigations, we must question whether we can treat it as an individual in terms of political campaigns.

Giving corporations presents three major problems which make the political landscape even more desolate than it was previously. First, people are already distrustful of corporations. Giving them unlimited power to affect the political process is only going to fuel the belief that our government is beholden only to the moneyed interest. Which I guess is good...because it is. Corporations can blame bad press for peoples' beliefs but, really, it's their own fault. You can't act like a dick and then get mad when people call you a dick and don't invite you to parties. Often, people say, "The corporation's only job is to make money for its shareholders." Well, my only job at work is to provide behavioral services to clients on my caseload. Often, I help with other clients pro bono because it's what good people do. They go above and beyond. When you do this, people can often be forgiving of other failures.

Second, our Constitution prohibits persons who are not citizens from voting or attempting to affect political outcomes in the United States. This is a good idea. What is good for another country may not be good for ours. But what happens when a corporation in the U.S. but whose parent company is in another country begins to attempt to direct the course of American politics? In whose interest are they then acting? These entities may be benign but is that a risk we should be willing to take?

Finally, the corporate interest in this country already abuses the loopholes they have. Instead of tightening the loop holes, the Supreme Court has widened them and given corporations a blessing on behalf of the people to do as they will. Where is the stopping point? If each individual is given a vote in the United States, should a corporate person be given a vote? Should members of that corporation be given two votes? Where does it end?

Luckily, Congress has set about trying to correct the action, proving the usefulness of checks and balances. Let us hope that the outcome is one that favors the individual and not the corporation.