Corporations Shouldn’t Have Human Rights

This past January, a Supreme Court ruling proclaimed that corporations have the same rights as any citizen currently living in the United States. As such, corporations now have the right to be described as an artificial person and/or a legal entity, and thus can give unlimited amounts of money to any cause that the people controlling the corporation may choose. This is a completely dehumanizing act toward the real flesh and blood bearing inhabitants of our nation, because the ruling gives equal rights to nonliving, manmade tools that have the potential to be influenced by foreign powers. Certain events in the past, like the Nixon ordeal, have made it especially hard to trust the law when money is involved.

While corporations may be liable in certain situations, such as manslaughter, like any other person, they also have the ability to exercise human rights. This is absolutely ludicrous because what corporation could kill a man? Every single person has their individual rights, and the corporations are made up of many different people. Should they want to sue an individual, it is certain that they will hire the best lawyers to win that case.

The Supreme Court claims that their decision protects freedom of speech. But is this decision protecting the freedom of speech for those it is intended to protect? No, it’s not. In fact, back when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written, it didn’t include African–Americans, women, or poor whites. So now, why is it that a corporation, which is defined as a group of people, combined into or acting as one body, is given rights when all those individual people have their own personal rights?

If the interests of the individual and the corporation are the same, then it makes no sense for people within the corporation to care if the “artificial person” is more limited in rights than they are themselves. Why do the people who own Nike, Disney, Apple, etc., not feel satisfied having their own rights and instead want to exercise the very same rights through a corporation? Simple. People who actually control the corporations, in place of the people who “own” them, like stock holders, have a whole lot more access to money than individuals, and thus have more of a say in political campaigns.

And even within the corporation, there are controversies regarding the way corporate America spends its money. Say certain members of a major business don’t agree with democratic views, and the corporation gives hundreds of dollars to democratic campaigns, would this be right if workers of the corporation don’t agree with the CEO? In a way, it’s rather humorous. A large entity has no personality of its own, but rather has multiple people working inside it. Yet, they have their own privileges and rights as though there is a humanized version of it. It would be terrifying to meet a bank, like Chase, out in the alley, especially if they’re owed money. But the decision does make sense in a way. Corporations do kind of need a sort of “freedom of speech” to allow them to advertise products or to fight it out over patents that haven’t been respected in court. Plus, corporations now have legal responsibilities in case something goes wrong.

However, there should be limitations on how they work. People (and this includes “artificial persons”) should be given a set limit on how much they’re allowed to give to any campaign. A small amount such as one hundred dollars would ensure that politicians and everyone “up there” are forced to listen to the side that makes the most sense instead of paying more attention to the people who have more money. It’s a cruel world out there, and to face it we must have leaders that look out for every single one of their constituents, rich and poor alike.

Photos:

• Corporations (Jesse Gibson).jpg