Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Al Carroll

(113 posts)
Thu Sep 25, 2014, 11:41 AM Sep 2014

A Proposed New Constitution Article 6- Limiting Corporate Power

Most of these articles on proposed constitutional reform have been posted under Election Reforms. But since this one deals with corporate power it seemed best to post here.

From the forthcoming A Proposed New Constitution.
http://proposednewconstitution.blogspot.com/

Article 6- Limiting Corporate Power

1.All rights in this and the previous constitution, as well as under all American laws, are limited to human beings only. A person under US law is defined as a living human being only. Corporation rights and powers may be severely limited by any and all governments, whether federal, state, city, country, special district, or American Indian tribe.


The Fourteenth Amendment may be the most misused and abused of all amendments. Intended to guarantee rights for former slaves, it has mostly been used to give corporations almost unlimited power. Two decades after the amendment passed, the courts ruled in Santa Clara v Southern Pacific that corporations were persons under the law, that as collections of individuals it was a legal useful fiction to pretend they were a person.

Corporations have rights no living person has. Corporation can be immortal, meaning they never have estate taxes. They pay far lower income tax rates than most people do. There are limits to how much and when they can be sued, and corporation management are largely protected from lawsuits for their actions. Of course the greatest and most controversial right given to them is from the Citizens United ruling. Corporations can spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns, as long as it is done through a third party.

This ruling showed the class and ideological bias of the court at its worst. Condemnations of it range across the political spectrum, from Ralph Nader to John McCain. This ruling has frequently been compared to the Dred Scott or Plessy v Ferguson decisions both for the devastation it causes American society and how infamously it will be remembered in history. In opinion polls, up to three quarters of Americans want to see it overturned, across all parties and political beliefs. Two dozen states have their campaign finance laws affected by the ruling. Sixteen states have called for constitutional amendments to overturn the ruling.

But this ruling is just the final end product of a court always designed and usually working for the most elite class interests. There is some documentation that the judges in the original Southern Pacific case did not intend their ruling to go that far and set as broad a precedent. Corporations are so powerful that many people don’t realize there was ever a time when their power was limited.

Even other elites worried about corporate power. Corporate charters in British colonial and early American times were limited. They had only so many years of existence, had to serve the public interest, and were often chartered with a narrow purpose. One of the proposed amendments for the Bill of Rights was a limit on corporate power. Andrew Jackson, before the civil rights era when little attention was paid to the Trail of Tears, was often held up as a popular hero for his successfully breaking one of the most powerful corporate institutions, the Bank of the US.

2.A corporation must serve the public interest and its life span shall be limited. Any corporation shall be permanently dissolved if they break the law more than five times. No business, corporation, or individual can escape fines, punishments, or legal judgments by declaring bankruptcy, holding companies, shell companies, or any other diversion, evasion, or tactic.

Corporate crime in America is far more serious than many realize. Corporate crime is the cause of more deaths than street crime, over 60,000 workplace deaths alone. Add to that one corporate scandal after another, each of them mostly or entirely unpunished, BCCI, Enron, Worldcom, subprime mortgages, underwater loans, etc., etc. The scandals are increasing in numbers, scale, and in how rarer punishment is becoming. Hundreds went to jail for the savings and loans bank scandal of the 1980s. Almost no one was jailed for the mortgage scandals.

In the documentary The Corporation, the film makers followed the logic of declaring corporations to be persons. If a corporation were a person, what would its personality be? They concluded the characteristics of a corporation define it as a sociopath. It cannot have empathy for others and acts without concern for anyone else. It is deliberately amoral, and defined as such for the purpose of self- interest alone. In fact if a corporation were to act morally (for reasons other than self interest in its public image) it almost certainly would face lawsuits from shareholders for failing to pursue maximum profit.

The power of the public over any and all corporations should be absolute. If a company pollutes, force it to clean up. If a corporation makes a destructive or defective product, let it be punished the same as an individual. For a time there was a movement towards “three strikes” laws for crime. Why not five strikes laws for corporations? If they break the law five times, they can be dissolved.

Let there be no more legal loopholes used to escape punishment. Bankruptcy was intended to let companies and individuals fail at business but still be able to start over. It was not and should not be there to avoid punishment for crimes. Combine this Proposed Article 6 with Proposed Article 11, which requires all crimes be punished and all criminals cannot evade punishment. A corporations that kills through negligence, incompetence, or greed, deserves a corporate death penalty, the end of its existence.

3.The right to collective bargaining by unions or other workers shall not be limited more than other civic or lobbying groups, nor subject to government recognition.

Unions are the most democratic institutions in America. They are the most representative of their membership. That is part of why are often demonized by those opposed to them and why so much effort has been expended to crush the labor movement.

It is not widely taught in public schools, but America has one of the most violent histories of class warfare anywhere in the world. Not simply “class warfare” as used today, where even bringing up class issues gets one labeled a Marxist. (Full disclosure: I am a traditional Catholic. That means I believe in social justice, and that capitalism is a sin.) From colonial times until the Great Depression, unions and strikes were often crushed with great brutality. Companies often used private armies, or had the police or US Army break a strike with violence. Two of the most notorious examples include the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, broken by killing over 100 strikers. In the West Virginia Mine Wars in the 1920s, the largest armed uprising since the Civil War saw a company army of over 5,000 kill over 20 miners with not just guns but mortars, and their own air force.

The reason why today we do not often hear of violent strikes, or many strikes at all, is that after World War II the US government learned to be a better strike breaker. During the Great Depression the Wagner Act was passed. It recognized union rights to exist, to bargain collectively, and to strike. But it also required unions to submit to being government recognized to be seen as legitimate.

The Taft Hartley Act, passed during Cold War hysteria, went much further. Any perceived radicals in a union can get it stripped of recognition. Companies can dictate when unions hold their elections, and unions have to give 60 days’ notice before striking. Company spies by law cannot be kicked out of a union, and strikebreakers' jobs are protected. A National Labor Relations Board is stacked with anti-union officials. Even were it to rule in favor of unions, it has little power, and so many workers are fired for joining unions or speaking out against abuses. Over 400 union locals are stripped of recognition each year.

Imagine how difficult organizing would be on any issue were these same practices forced on others. How powerful would the National Rifle Association be if it lost 400 chapters a year? How well would any organization on either side of the abortion issue do if the other side could decide when it holds elections, given 60 days to prepare for campaigns, and that organization could not remove spies in its midst or people hired to break their group up?

None of these union busting practices should be legal. Let unions be treated by the same standards as any other civic, lobbying, or interest group. Anyone who joins a union should be able to. Over half of Americans wish they were part of a union. But under 10% of Americans actually are. These are mostly government workers such as cops, firefighters, and teachers. Only public pressure on governments keep them from being as abusive to their workers as private companies.

Unions were what turned the US into a middle class nation. For one generation after World War II, unions helped spread prosperity to those people most responsible for it. But since the 1970s inequality has grown sharply, to where it is now as bad as before the Great Depression. Unions can reverse that, and doing so would be good for the nation as a whole and business as a whole. An economy is much more vulnerable when it depends mostly on the spending of the well off.

-------------
Al Carroll is Assistant Professor of History at Northern Virginia Community College and the author of numerous articles and books including the forthcoming A Proposed New Constitution.
http://proposednewconstitution.blogspot.com/
http://alcarroll.com

16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A Proposed New Constitution Article 6- Limiting Corporate Power (Original Post) Al Carroll Sep 2014 OP
Paragraph 2 is very problematic and unrealistic. DetlefK Sep 2014 #1
You benefit from a corporate enitity? Stargazer99 Sep 2014 #2
Agreed. CaptainTruth Sep 2014 #5
'maximizing shareholder value is certainly "serving the public interest"' FiveGoodMen Sep 2014 #6
"serving the public interest" should be redefined to "serve anybody"? DetlefK Sep 2014 #7
Your personal business dealings are your own FiveGoodMen Sep 2014 #9
I'll have to remember that... Al Carroll Sep 2014 #11
Are you serious? Al Carroll Sep 2014 #10
Rewritethe constitutuion jeepers Sep 2014 #3
Why not do both? Al Carroll Sep 2014 #12
The focus on the word "Corporation" hinders future-proofing the amendment. LonePirate Sep 2014 #4
What do you suggest? Al Carroll Sep 2014 #14
Well intentioned, but ridiculous in several regards, including that it would do nothing ... Scuba Sep 2014 #8
Actually it would... Al Carroll Sep 2014 #13
But it wouldn't stop David and Charles from giving as much as they pleased. Scuba Sep 2014 #15
Article 6 2 jeepers Oct 2014 #16

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
1. Paragraph 2 is very problematic and unrealistic.
Thu Sep 25, 2014, 11:59 AM
Sep 2014

What does "serving the public interest" mean? They provide payday-loans which give people economic flexibility!

A corporation with limited life-span? What happens to the assets, the stocks and the employees when a corporation is dissolved?

Breaking the law five times? Does that mean being on trial 5 times or commiting 5 crimes like violating the building-code in 5 different parking-lots?

Stargazer99

(2,600 posts)
2. You benefit from a corporate enitity?
Thu Sep 25, 2014, 12:12 PM
Sep 2014

I sure as hell do not and corporations are THINGS not living human beings and corporations have proven time and again human life means nothing when it comes to profits.

CaptainTruth

(6,615 posts)
5. Agreed.
Thu Sep 25, 2014, 02:27 PM
Sep 2014

A corporation's shareholders are members of the public, so maximizing shareholder value is certainly "serving the public interest," but I would argue that is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I appreciate the concept, & the first point seems spot-on, but as you say the second one seems unrealistic.

FiveGoodMen

(20,018 posts)
6. 'maximizing shareholder value is certainly "serving the public interest"'
Thu Sep 25, 2014, 02:48 PM
Sep 2014

It's helping a fraction of the public take advantage of the rest of the public.

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
7. "serving the public interest" should be redefined to "serve anybody"?
Fri Sep 26, 2014, 04:37 AM
Sep 2014

If I buy something cheap and sell it expensive, I damaged the public because I ripped off the original guy, not sharing my profit with him.

Al Carroll

(113 posts)
10. Are you serious?
Fri Sep 26, 2014, 08:25 PM
Sep 2014

I don't think I've ever seen anyone defend payday loans. Certainly not anyone whose ever had those legal loan shark agreements, with up to 300% interest.

Obviously serve the public interest means the same thing it means when radio and TV stations come up for licensing.

jeepers

(314 posts)
3. Rewritethe constitutuion
Thu Sep 25, 2014, 12:28 PM
Sep 2014

I can't imagine that our present constitution will make it into the next century with us, but to be debating articles for a new constitution at this point is premature.
Would you agree that first the People need a why? I have read yours, 'sacred cow, and some sacred cows should not be worshipped to paraphrase are weak arguments. That whole elite thing is modern perception I suspect.
I think the real issue in a constitutional rewrite is to outlines how We would go about the debate and implementation of the new constitution. until then debate over new articles is moot.
Don't get me wrong doctor I think a reexamination of our constitution is a potential nation saver. I believe such a discussion should take place in the media with the net playing the larger role.

With respect for your endeavors

LonePirate

(13,437 posts)
4. The focus on the word "Corporation" hinders future-proofing the amendment.
Thu Sep 25, 2014, 12:38 PM
Sep 2014

It seems too restrictive to me as the enemy 100 years from now may be something similar but legally distinct from what we know corporations to be today.

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
8. Well intentioned, but ridiculous in several regards, including that it would do nothing ...
Fri Sep 26, 2014, 07:22 AM
Sep 2014

... to rein in privately owned businesses like Koch Industries.

Al Carroll

(113 posts)
13. Actually it would...
Fri Sep 26, 2014, 08:31 PM
Sep 2014

end Citizens United entirely. And Congress or any state legislature, city gov't, etc could vote to limit corporate power any way they choose.

Another proposed article makes elections publicly funded.

jeepers

(314 posts)
16. Article 6 2
Mon Oct 6, 2014, 02:51 PM
Oct 2014

The General welfare clause in the US Constitution has been expansively debated and could serve here to mean serve the public interests.

Punishment for violating the public trust might go over better if instead of dissolving the corp., depending on various considerations, the corporation could be nationalized, as in banking, become property of the State, as in utilities, or property of the workers. Let the investors lose their money if they allow their investments to defraud the consumer. Make investors insist on ethical behavior for the sake of their profits.

The right to unionize should be included in FDR's Bill of Rights.



As to my last post. My point is that no one that I know of is talking about how to implement a new constitution. We can write all the pieces of paper we want, but until we have an idea of how to make it all work, how we can institute the darn thing, what is the point?

It gets bigger. Even to the point of requiring a national effort with multiple campaigns happening all at the same time. Such are revolutions.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Economy»A Proposed New Constituti...