I gotta start a blog...Except I figure when I do, I will run out of things to write about. Until I do, here goes. Please DO NOT STOP when you see the words Supreme Court. This matters, I swear. There is a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that could open up a whole new can of worms. But first, a flashback to the recent past. The Supremes ruled in the landmark case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that Congress cannot ban political speech based on a speakers corporate identity. In essence, they said that Corporations are people too, and people have a First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Further, since to a corporation money equals speech, a corporation can give any amount of money it wants to a political cause or candidate. I called this the worst Supreme Court decision since Plessy v. Ferguson (Google it, for crying out loud). My Con Law professor disagreed. I still think I am right. He knows lots more about this stuff than I do, but even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while. At the time, I said, whats next? If corporations have a First Amendment right to freedom of expression, do they also have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms? They said I was crazy. Ha ha ha ha. Whos laughing now? Did that come across as crazy... I hope not. HERE is where the swamp gets a lot muddier. The Supreme Court is in the midst of deciding another of those landmark cases, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores. At issue is whether the owner of a corporation can exercise his or her religious freedom in running a corporation/business. And why shouldnt he/she, you might ask. Excellent question. To answer that, we need a couple of sentences about what a corporation actually is. A corporation is, and always has been, what is known as a legal person. One creates a corporation in order to limit potential liability. Otherwise, you could start Widgets, Incorporated, and I could sue you personally when one of the companys delivery trucks ran over my dog. This separation between the owner/creator and the thing which he hath wrought is known as the corporate veil. To maintain that veil, it is critical that the owner and the corporation be considered as separate entities (people, if you will). If, for example, I can prove that you only created Widgets Incorporated to get the tax advantages, but that you continued to use as your personal savings account, then I can go after you directly. If you want the protection from liability, you have to play by the rules. In many respects, a legal person is a LEGAL FICTION. Its useful for some things, but it aint real. I always thought what was at stake in Citizens United was whether guys like the Koch Brothers could use their corporate alter ego to evade the limits on individual campaign contributions. They Supremes said they could, thank you very much. In other words, even though their political beliefs drove their contributions, that didnt matter as long as they laundered them through the corporation. In Hobby Lobby, the question is whether ones religious beliefs can also pierce the corporate veil. The answer to that question might release a lot of worms. If the Court says that corporations can exercise this kind of religion-based discrimination, then they can mean only one of two things. Either the Court has now endowed this FICTIONAL person with sentience and higher feelings, such as a sense of a Higher Being, or they have said that the corporation is really its owners. I dont think even they have the power to create life, so it has to be Option B. You are your corporation and your corporation is you. Some commentators mean that is the beginning of the end of the corporate veil as a protection. Why, then, should not the Koch Brothers face the same limits in their corporate giving as in their individual giving? Why indeed? If the Court says no - as a corporation, they cannot base treatment of either employees or customers on religious beliefs, then how in bloody Hell can the Koch Brothers base their corporate conduct on their individual political beliefs? If you have read this far (unlikely) you may find yourself wondering what is the big deal. Another good question. Our founders really wanted to base voting qualifications on property ownership, but they couldnt pull it off. Thats how we end up with one person one vote. This completely disregards the Electoral College, not to mention that whole three-fifths of a person concept (Google it) but most of us think its a nice idea. Money has played an ever larger role in our politics for many years. That aint a good thing. In Citizens United, the Supremes came within spitting distance of discarding One Person One Vote and replacing it with One Dollar One Vote. And that aint democracy. The ruling in Hobby Lobby could possibly (just possibly) provide a way to challenge Citizens United. We shall see.
Posted on: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:53:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015