|
aaaCorporations should exist
under the sovereignty of We the People. Corporations are artificial
entities, created by human beings, and are subordinate to human
beings. What we are proposing is a restructuring of the current
system under which large multi-national corporations operate
in Arizona. Under current law, residents in the State of Arizona
have little or no control over the corporations doing business
in our state, as they attempt to govern our lives. It is our
intention to return the democratic principles of consent of the
governed by removing a feature of corporate defining law, which
states that 'corporations are people'. aaaDefining laws that were once common features of state corporation codes included the prohibition of corporations owning stock in other corporations, making stockholders liable for a corporations debts, corporations were not allowed to make campaign contributions or to influence the democratic process in any way, and corporations had no constitutional rights. A corporation was an artificial creation set up to serve a public need, not an independent entity with intrinsic "rights". aaaThe fiction of corporate 'personhood' came about during the late 1800's. This was the, so-called, Guilded Age, a time when the sinister pattern of purchasing political favors for money was common. These were the days of the most corrupt administrations in our history, from the Grant presidency, to Boss Tweed, and the controlling governmental influences of what were known as the Robber Barons. The non-elected, (at that time), Senate was so pro-business and contained so much wealth during this time it became known as the Millionaires' Club. Federal judges could also amass huge fortunes as shareholders of corporations, if only they could find a way to subvert governmental regulation and oversight. aaaThen, in 1886 a court reporter for the Supreme Court claimed the court had ruled that "corporations are persons". The case was Santa Clara v. Union Pacific Railroad, but, if you were to read the case itself, you would find that in fact the court had ruled no such thing. Although the notes of this case are not a legal document, subsequent courts and corporate attorneys have claimed this corrupt interpretation of the 14th Amendment, (which was actually passed to guarantee the rights of emancipated slaves), so that a private corporation is now considered a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitution affords any person. And they did this at a time when all women, Native Americans, and most African Americans were still denied their own basic rights as persons. This opinion was rendered without argument or explanation. No state or federal legislature passed, or even discussed the issue. No Constitutional Amendment was deemed necessary. The citizens were simply informed that, by judicial decree, corporations have the same rights as people. aaaSince that time, corporations have used that decision to assure their protections to a number Constitutional Amendments. For example, they have argued successfully that under the 1st Amendment, money is equal to speech, so corporate monetary donations for political influence and lobbying are free speech issues, (even though they are not voters or citizens). Advertising too, becomes free speech, more than free, it's tax-deductible, just like their lawyers' fees for criminal trials, corporate lobbying expenses, and toxic waste clean-ups. aaaUsing the 4th Amendment, corporations now have privacy rights and can deny OSHA and EPA inspectors access to their properties. This protects corporations from random inspection, without which it is virtually impossible to enforce meaningful health, safety, environmental laws, or to have federal regulatory inspections of corporate accounting practices without a warrant, (giving some corporations time to hide or destroy incriminating documents). With no oversight, corporations, in collusion with their accountant/consultants hide billions of dollars in losses from the investing public while analysts, that are paid off by the investment bankers, advise the public to buy what they know is a worthless stock. aaaCorporations now have 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination and double jeopardy. They have designed litigation around "takings"- the doctrine that some regulations constitute the taking of private property without due process or compensation, again violating their 5th Amendment rights. As another weapon in their arsenal, they use it as a way of getting around such things as rent control statutes, and Superfund clean-ups. And if they manufacture a harmful product and it is removed from the market by legislation, they sue for lost profits. aaaThey have also used their rights as 'persons' against U.S. citizens working for corporations, since the courts have privileged employers' property rights over their workers' rights to free speech, freedom of association, and freedom of labor. So employees now have an extremely difficult task when trying to organize against employers who flagrantly violate their labor rights. The current percentage of union workers in the United States is only 14%, although if given the choice of joining a union or not, nearly 50% of workers would join. aaaCorporate rights have been pushed to the point that there are no discernable limits. Corporations have more rights and far less liability than real, natural, human beings. Throughout the United States, under corporate rule; We now have only six corporations that own 90% of the national media, they essentially control public opinion. We are engaged in an endless war, because it is good for the defense industry, which accounts for nearly half of the discretionary budget. We have one corporation that accounts for nearly ten percent of all retail sales in the country, but for every 100 low wage jobs this giant retailer creates in a community, they destroy 150. We allow non-violent drug offenders to serve lengthy prison sentences, in lieu of more cost-effective treatments, because the private prison corporations make more money by increasing the number of inmates in their facilities. In one of the greatest ironies, the same corporation that earns $300 million by manufacturing a carcinogenic herbicide, also earns $470 million marketing the popular cancer therapy drug tamoxifen and operating several cancer treatment facilities. aaaHere in Arizona, TRW, the nation's ninth-largest government contractor received $10.3 billion dollars in federal contracts, between the years 1995-2000. With over 80 EPA and OSHA violations, TRW's earnings are 400 times the amount they have paid in fines. These violations include illegal dumping, government contract fraud, mishandling pension payments, forcing employees to work off the clock, and violating workplace safety laws. The latter resulted in the death of one employee while several others sustained injuries. Federal officials reviewed these violations and decided that TRW should remain eligible for government contracts, to the tune of another $2.5 billion in federal contracts awarded last year. aaaIn the last twenty years pay for corporate CEO's has increased 600%, while during this same period of reportedly massive growth the average American makes a lower median wage, has less purchasing power, and has an increased chance of becoming homeless. Corporate taxes have decreased from 35% to less than 14% as citizens are asked to carry the bulk of this tax burden while big business is given huge corporate subsidies that pay for the exorbitant lifestyles of these corporate officers who hide there money in offshore accounts. We are told corporations need these tax breaks and subsidies to create jobs, and the public doesn't seem to notice when these same corporations suddenly slash jobs, laying off people by the thousands, simply to reduce costs. Most of these jobs have been sent overseas where employees work in sweatshops for below poverty wages while U.S. workers are left with lower paying service industry positions. aaaSome may argue that government regulations are the tool by which citizens keep corporations accountable, but regulatory law has nearly always failed to reign in corporate abuses. Of course that was the intention when the current system of regulation was introduced by the large corporations as a mechanism to restrict citizen input, not to control corporate behavior. So when we participate in regulatory law proceedings, we follow the script that the corporations have written for us. The corporate public relations teams blame the regulatory agencies for their economic ills, and the public blames these agencies for not controlling the corporations. Attention is deflected away from the corporations as the source of the problems, and towards efforts to 'reform' the regulatory agencies. We end up fighting corporate injustices by groveling for tidbits, one chemical at a time, one tree at a time, one biotech mutation at a time, one article of sweatshop produced clothing at a time. We have been divided and conquered. aaaThe fact that regulatory agencies have failed to protect the public is clear given the fact that OSHA has prosecuted only 14 cases of industrial negligence in 20 years with only 10 convictions and no jail time. Standards instituted by the Clean Air Act have been delayed time and time again as lawsuits filed by the nation's largest industrial polluters increase smog levels and greenhouse gas emissions. It took the FDA 25 years to restrict the use of cancer causing red dyes in food while it endured 28 corporate-pressured delays. Who then is working for the public good? aaaWhat could change if corporations did not have personhood? If corporations no longer had the right to free speech, we could prohibit all corporate political activity. No more contributions to candidates or parties, no more lobbying, no more money contaminating our political process. Instead of having to schedule inspections at the convenience of corporate managers, federal regulatory agencies could maintain proper oversight over corporate abuses. Corporations could also be prevented from merging and owning stock in other corporations. If corporate personhood were eliminated, a floodgate of possibilities opens for citizen sovereignty to replace corporate governance. aaaTerms such as 'corporate responsibility' are used when the people call out for justice, but this is an oxymoron since the corporations themselves point out that shareholder profit maximization is the corporation's only legitimate and legally recognized goal. Corporations, when they assume the rights of persons and function as private governments are, by definition, denying the basic rights of the individual natural person. What we're seeking here isn't changing the laws of gravity or finding the fountain of youth. It is self-governance in a context of the free flow of ideas and information, sparked by debate and discussion. And it is fairness - plain, ordinary fairness, something any real, natural person can detect. |
|
|
