adam winkler UCLA bak

<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">bad format, bad code see txt bak</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><a href="https://www.newenglrev.com/volume-54-1/corporate-personhood-and-constitutional-rights-for-corporations"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.newenglrev.com/volume-54-1/corporate-personhood-and-constitutional-rights-for-corporations</font></a></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CORPORATE PERSON-HOOD AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOR CORPORATIONS

Are corporations people? Should they, like ordinary individuals, be able to claim constitutional protections? These questions, which form the heart of Professor Kent Greenfield’s book, Corporations are People Too (And They Should Act Like It),<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-top: 0px;">1</span>&nbsp;have become among the most important in modern constitutional law due to a trio of high-profile, landmark cases. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court held that business corporations have the same free speech rights as ordinary people to spend their money on election advertisements.<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer;">2</span>&nbsp;In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Court held that business corporations have religious liberty under a federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, entitling the chain of craft stores to an exemption from a federal law requiring birth control coverage in employee health plans.<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer;">3</span>&nbsp;More recently, in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Court ruled that business corporations have religious liberty rights under the First Amendment, allowing a for-profit bakery to refuse to comply with a state law prohibiting public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-bottom: 0px;">4</span></font><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One prominent criticism of these controversial decisions is that the Supreme Court relied on corporate personhood—the legal doctrine that treats corporations as if they are legal persons with their own rights. In the wake of Citizens United, Occupy Wall Street protestors held up signs saying “Corporations Are NOT People” and adopted a resolution declaring that “one critical threat to authentic democratic self-governance comes from the fact that corporations have been defined as legal persons. . . . [H]uman beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.”<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-top: 0px;">5</span>&nbsp;A proposed amendment to the Constitution has been introduced that would limit the “rights protected by the Constitution of the United States” to “natural persons only.”<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-bottom: 0px;">6</span></font></p><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In Corporations Are People Too, Greenfield offers a powerful rebuttal to these critics. Although Greenfield, too, believes that Citizens United is a problematic decision, he argues that the critics are wrong about corporate personhood. According to Greenfield, corporations should be considered legal persons for some purposes, including constitutional analysis. “Corporations do, and should, receive constitutional protections,” Greenfield contends, even if not all of the same ones that ordinary people enjoy. To sort out which rights corporations should have, Greenfield offers a nuanced test that looks at the type of corporation and the nature of the right. “In other words, when it comes to the Constitution, corporations are people some of the time. And sometimes they are not.”</font></p><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Inspired by Greenfield’s book, this article provides a historical analysis of the role of corporate personhood in the rise of constitutional protections for corporations.<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-top: 0px;">7</span>&nbsp;By surveying the most important corporate rights cases decided by the Supreme Court over the course of American history, this article finds that corporate personhood has not played the central role in justifying the steady expansion of corporate constitutional rights that some critics of Citizens United might assume. Start, for example, with Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Citizens United; it never refers to corporations as people and nothing in the logic or reasoning of the opinion depends upon corporate personhood. Justice Kennedy employs instead a different metaphor for the corporation: corporations are associations. Describing the corporation as “an association that has taken on the corporate form,” Justice Kennedy’s opinion declares, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-bottom: 0px;">8</span>&nbsp;In Justice Kennedy’s view, corporations have rights not because they are persons but because corporations are comprised of people, and those people have rights that ought to be respected regardless of the use of the corporate form.</font></p><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citizens United, we will see, follows the approach the Supreme Court has typically taken to corporate rights controversies. Corporations have been winning constitutional protections since America’s earliest days, and the prevailing pattern has been for the Supreme Court to treat corporations as associations or to ignore the relevance of the corporate entity entirely. In the majority of cases extending constitutional rights to corporations, the Court tends to portray corporations as simply groups of people who have come together for a common purpose.<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">9</span>&nbsp;While the Supreme Court has occasionally referred to corporate personhood, the associational understanding of the corporation has been far more influential in justifying the extension of constitutional rights to corporations. Because the courts look through the corporate veil and base the constitutional analysis on the members of the corporation—or sometimes on the rights of other people—corporate entities are afforded nearly all the same rights as people. The personhood of the corporation, however, plays little role in these cases.</font></p><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Surprisingly, in the handful of cases when the Supreme Court has embraced the principle of corporate personhood, the result has usually been to limit the rights of corporations. When the corporation is taken to be a person in its own right, separate and apart from its members, it is often accorded lesser and fewer rights than ordinary people; a corporate person is not equal to a human person. Rather than justify expansive rights for corporations, corporate personhood historically has had the opposite effect, invoked most frequently in judicial decisions that restrict the range of corporate rights claims. When courts recognize corporations as legal persons, they treat them as having rights of their own instead of affording them the same rights as their members have as individuals. And because corporations are special types of legal persons, they should only have those rights appropriate for corporate persons.</font></p><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><h3 data-preserve-html-node="true" align="center" style="font-weight: 500; line-height: calc(1.3552); margin: 2rem 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I. Corporations as Legal Persons</font></h3><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What is corporate personhood? For all the criticism of corporate personhood in the controversy over Citizens United, it is easy to overlook the fact that corporate personhood is an ancient and well-established principle in business law. More than 250 years ago, before the birth of the United States, William Blackstone in his influential Commentaries on the Law of England described the corporation as an “artificial person.”<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-top: 0px;">10</span>&nbsp;Open up any introductory law school textbook on corporate law or business associations and one of the very first lessons will be that corporations are legal persons. “One of the law’s most economically significant contributions to business life,” writes Robert Charles Clark in his popular Corporate Law textbook, “has been the creation of fictional but legally recognized entities or ‘persons’ that are treated as having some of the attributes of natural persons.”

When Marshall referred to the corporation as “artificial” and “existing only in contemplation of law,” he was explaining why the case should not be decided on the basis of the separate legal personality of the corporations; the corporation was an ephemeral, fictional entity, not a person with rights of its own.<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;">53</span>&nbsp;Instead, the case should be decided on the basis of the members’ rights, because they were the ones who Marshall saw as the real parties involved.</font></p><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">C. Equal Protection of the Laws</font></p><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">TA controversial, even bizarre, expansion of corporate rights came out of a series of Supreme Court cases in the <b>1880s involving the Southern Pacific Railroad. </b>After California adopted a special tax rule for property owned by railroads, the Southern Pacific in a series of cases challenged the law as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process clauses.<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-top: 0px;">54</span>&nbsp;The Supreme Court would ultimately hold that corporations were entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protections,<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-bottom: 0px;">55</span>&nbsp;although corporate personhood would play an ambiguous and easily exaggerated role.</font></p><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Without doubt, the Southern Pacific’s cases raised the question of whether a corporation was a “person” under the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from denying to any “person” due process and equal protection of the laws. While that amendment was adopted after the Civil War to protect the rights of the freedmen, Southern Pacific argued it also protected business corporations. Roscoe Conkling, Southern Pacific’s lead lawyer in the first of two Southern Pacific cases, San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.,<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-top: 0px;">56</span>&nbsp;claimed that corporations were persons: “[T]he Southern Pacific Railroad Company and its creditors and stockholders are among the ‘persons’ protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-bottom: 0px;">57</span></font></p><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Conkling had unusual credibility with the Justices. He had been twice nominated to sit on the Supreme Court himself, most recently in the spring of 1882, the same year he appeared before the Court in the San Mateo County case.<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-top: 0px;">58</span>&nbsp;He was confirmed by the Senate but declined the seat; he remains the last person to refuse a Supreme Court appointment after being confirmed.<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer;">59</span>&nbsp;Moreover, as a young congressional representative, Conkling had served on the committee that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment.<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer;">60</span>&nbsp;Conkling suggested he and his fellow committee members drafted the amendment to protect corporations. The committee, he said, had changed the proposed text, which originally guaranteed equal protection to “citizens of the United States,” to guarantee rights to every “person.”<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer;">61</span>&nbsp;In law, the word person “has by long and constant acceptance, and by multiplied judicial construction, been held to embrace artificial persons as well as natural persons.”<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer;">62</span>&nbsp;“The American people, in giving [The Fourteenth Amendment] their imprimatur understood what they were doing, and meant to decree what has, in fact, been decreed.”<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer;">63</span>&nbsp;Conkling supported his account by producing an old journal that purported to be an unpublished record of the deliberations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s drafting committee.<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-bottom: 0px;">64</span></font></p><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Although the somewhat suspicious journal was in fact an unpublished record of the drafting committee’s deliberations, it did not provide the evidence Conkling suggested. </b>Howard Jay Graham, a legal historian who thoroughly studied Conkling’s argument in the San Mateo County case, found that the committee had never revised the Equal Protection Clause from “citizens” to “person,” as Conkling claimed.<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-top: 0px;">65</span>&nbsp;And none of the other drafters had ever suggested that corporations were covered by the amendment, either during the hotly contested and much publicized ratification debates or after. Graham concluded that Conkling, a trusted lawyer of outstanding reputation, had engaged in “a deliberate, brazen forgery” to win new rights for corporations.<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-bottom: 0px;">66</span></font></p><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Court never issued a final ruling in the San Mateo County case, holding onto it for three years until Southern Pacific unexpectedly settled the case.<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-top: 0px;">67</span>&nbsp;One is tempted to speculate that the Justices discovered the misconduct, but it remains uncertain. Nonetheless, the Southern Pacific had another case against another California county raising the same Fourteenth Amendment question ready for Supreme Court review: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer;">68</span>&nbsp;With Conkling no longer involved, the railroad corporation’s lawyers continued to argue that corporations were covered by the Equal Protection Clause. The Court ruled in favor of the railroad but on state law, not constitutional, grounds. The majority opinion explained that “it is not necessary to consider any other questions,” including the “grave questions of constitutional law” relating to corporations and the Fourteenth Amendment.<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-bottom: 0px;">69</span></font></p><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>One justice, Stephen Field, was particularly unhappy with the Court’s avoidance of the corporate rights question.</b> Riding circuit, Justice Field had authored the lower court opinions in both San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. and Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., ruling that corporations were covered by the Equal Protection Clause.<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-top: 0px;">70</span>&nbsp;In a companion case decided by the Supreme Court on the same day as Santa Clara County, Field wrote separately to criticize his colleague’s avoidance of the corporate rights question. “At the present day, nearly all great enterprises are conducted by corporations,” wrote Field.&nbsp;<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer;">71</span>&nbsp;“Hardly an industry can be named that is not in some way promoted by them, and a vast portion of the wealth of the country is in their hands.”<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer;">72</span>&nbsp;He expressed “regret that it has not been deemed consistent with [the Court’s] duty to decide the important constitutional questions involved, and particularly the one which was so fully considered in the circuit court.”<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-bottom: 0px;">73</span></font></p><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Although Field and the other justices all understood that the Santa Clara County Court did not decide whether corporations had Fourteenth Amendment rights, that fact eluded the Supreme Court’s Reporter of Decisions. </b>In the summary of the Santa Clara County opinion published in the official volumes of the United States Reports, the first sentence describes the Court’s holding: “The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-top: 0px;">74</span>&nbsp;And the Reporter added an unusual headnote just before the first lines of the Court’s opinions reporting that the Chief Justice had said at the beginning of oral argument that the “Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.”<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer;">75</span>&nbsp;As a result, the Santa Clara County case has mistakenly been cited in numerous cases for holding precisely what Field and the other justices explicitly said it did not: that corporations are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-bottom: 0px;">76</span></font></p><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A few years after Santa Clara County, Field wrote the majority opinion upholding double liability on railroads for damage to livestock in Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company v. Beckwith.&nbsp;<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-top: 0px;">77</span>&nbsp;Although it was unnecessary given the outcome of the case, Field went out of his way to address corporate rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. “It is contended by counsel as the basis of his argument, and we admit the soundness of his position, that corporations are persons within the meaning of the clause in question. It was so held in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.”<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-bottom: 0px;">78</span>&nbsp;Although Field’s statement was obviously incorrect about the holding of Santa Clara County, the justices ultimately agreed that corporations were protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.</font></p><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><b style="background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);">Indeed, in the more than 140 years since Santa Clara County, all but three or four of the Justices who have sat on the Supreme Court have agreed that corporations have rights under the Fourteenth Amendmen</b><span style="background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);">t. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);">Yet, to this day, there has never been an opinion of the Court explaining why corporations are covered by the Fourteenth Amendment.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"> It is thus somewhat hard to say how corporate personhood influenced the extension of these rights. Much of the argument by the lawyers in the Southern Pacific Railroad cases emphasized personhood: whether a corporation was a “person” under the text of the amendment. Field specifically embraces this conclusion too in Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company, although without explanation in one passing sentence.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For Field, however, personhood was little more than a textual hook. In his lower court opinions in the Southern Pacific Railroad cases, Field rejected the core tenet of corporate personhood, independence of identity. The court, he wrote, should not look to “the name under which different persons are united, but to the individuals composing the union.”<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-top: 0px;">79</span>&nbsp;Taking Chief Justice Marshall’s approach from Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, Field insisted that the true parties were the “members” of the corporation who “do not, because of such association, lose their rights to protection.”<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-bottom: 0px;">80</span>&nbsp;Corporations had Fourteenth Amendment rights not because corporations were equivalent to people but because corporations were comprised of actual people who had rights that would be burdened by business regulation.</font></p><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Legal historians who have studied the Southern Pacific Railroad cases have generally rejected the idea that Santa Clara County turns on corporate personhood, despite the textual reliance on “persons.”</b> Morton Horwitz argues that the doctrinal development of corporate rights at this time was not “a dramatic example of judicial personification of the corporation.”<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-top: 0px;">81</span>&nbsp;Instead, Horwitz, Greg Mark, and others contend that the lawyers and justices of the era emphasized a “partnership” theory of the corporation that looked right through the corporate veil and based corporate rights on the rights of the members.<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-bottom: 0px;">82</span>&nbsp;So while corporate personhood certainly played some role, at least as a textual matter, in the Santa Clara County line of cases, the Court never explicitly embraced any overarching theory of the corporation to justify the extension of Fourteenth Amendment rights. And the explanation we have from Field rested on a theory that denied the fundamental separation between the corporate entity and its members.</font></p><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">D. The Freedom of Association</font></p><p style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);" /><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-bottom: 0px;" /></font></p><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Supreme Court first held that corporations have a freedom of association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments in NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, decided in 1958.<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-top: 0px;">83</span>&nbsp;Although, as we will see in the next section, the Court had previously declined to extend such a right to corporate entities in the early 1900s, the Southern effort to disable the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) during the Civil Rights Era pushed the justices to reverse course. The NAACP was not a business, of course, but it was formed as a corporation.<span data-preserve-html-node="true" style="line-height: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; top: -0.5em; cursor: pointer; margin-bottom: 0px;">84</span>&nbsp;And it was the NAACP’s corporate status that Alabama targeted in an effort to push the organization out of the state.</font></p><p data-preserve-html-node="true" align="justify" style="margin: 1rem 0px; background-color: rgb(251, 250, 249);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.thedailybeast.com/author/adam-winkler</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In his muckracking classic, Other People’s Money – And How Bankers Use It, progressive reformer Louis Brandeis famously wrote, “Sunlight is the best of disinfectants.” In the modern financial system, corporate executives often control funds that don’t belong to them. To Brandeis, transparency and disclosure were effective means of minimizing the risk of executives misusing those funds, either wasting them away negligently or enriching themselves nefariously. Inspired by Brandeis, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission to oversee publicly traded companies and to create a more open, reliable, honest marketplace for investors.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Brandeis’s heirs in the progressive movement – along with other opponents of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United – have sought to have the SEC direct some sunlight on corporate political spending. This week the Commission closed the shades. In announcing its 2014 “Priorities,” the SEC omitted any mention of corporate political transparency. The implication is that the SEC will not issue any new rules on this, despite announcing late last year that it was considering “a proposed rule to require that public companies provide disclosure to shareholders regarding the use of corporate resources for political activities.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The news was an unexpected setback for the Corporate Reform Coalition, a group of institutional investors, government reform advocates, and labor unions that has been pushing for the SEC to compel disclosure of corporate political spending. The Coalition helped secure over 600,000 comments submitted to the SEC as part of the rulemaking process – a record. "We're incredibly disappointed by this, and we need an explanation for why they removed the most widely supported regulation in their docket," said Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen's Congress Watch.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The SEC, for its part, offered no reasons for dropping disclosure. When the Supreme Court opened up the floodgates to corporate money in Citizens United, the justices assumed that such spending would be known by shareholders. “With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the Court. Yet Kennedy was wrong. There were no disclosure rules in place for this sort of spending. Because the law had banned it, Congress hadn’t required corporations to disclose it. In the 2012 election, hundreds of millions of “dark money” dollars flowed into campaign ads. With Congress hopelessly deadlocked, the SEC was disclosure advocates’ last hope.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The SEC may have been persuaded by the arguments of those, like the Chamber of Commerce’s Blair Latoff Holmes, who insisted the SEC had no business regulating political spending. “Campaign finance reform is not, has never been, and should never be a function of the SEC,” according to Holmes. Brad Smith, of the Center for Competitive Politics, a group opposed to campaign finance reform, said the SEC’s proper focus is “protecting investors and regulating capital markets” not “campaign finance law.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There is some precedent for the SEC’s regulation of the political activity of publicly held corporations. According to Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, one of the leading experts on corporate disclosure, the SEC has previously acted in this area. She cites the SEC’s 1994 rules adopted to stem “pay-to-play” in the municipal bond market, 2010 rules restricting political fundraising by public pension fund advisors, and investigations into bribery of foreign officials after Watergate that spurred enactment of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Despite that history, it may be that today’s SEC is reluctant to take on a hot-button issue that might infuriate Republicans on Capitol Hill, who control the commission’s purse strings.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While Brandeis would have applauded the efforts of disclosure advocates, he may have been too sanguine about sunlight’s curative effects. No doubt disclosure of corporate political spending would provide useful information some shareholders, especially those hyper-attentive to politics. Media and corporate watchdog groups would be able to expose who is spending what in our elections. Yet in today’s publicly held corporations, shareholders have little real power to control management. It’s extremely rare that shareholders are able to force corporate officials’ hands through proxy voting or breach of fiduciary duty lawsuits. And while some shareholders can sell their shares, that remedy isn’t available to many. Public pension funds often operate under rules that prohibit selling in such circumstances, and individual pension fund investors are penalized for selling early. Disclosure wouldn’t really empower shareholders to stop executives from spending shareholder money on politics.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Disclosure can also have perverse effects. In the 1990s, a similar group of corporate reformers pushed for increased disclosure of executive compensation. The idea was to shame corporate boards from paying executives excessive salaries. The opposite happened. Boards saw what everyone else was paying and, certain that their executives were better than average, paid them accordingly. Executive compensation skyrocketed. The same thing could happen with disclosure of corporate political spending. Although shareholders can’t really do much with the information, the same can’t be said for executives seeking to influence elected officials. They’ll see what others are giving and commit their own firms to give more. Instead of shaming executives, we might see a political spending arms race.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Or maybe not. Due to the SEC’s refusal to require transparency, all we can do is guess about disclosure’s ultimate effect. In the meantime, corporate executives will continue to funnel other people’s money into the electoral process – without those other people ever knowing about it.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">wiki 11 22</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">adam Winkler (born July 25, 1967) is the Connell Professor of law at the UCLA School of Law. He is the author of We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights[1] and Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America.[2]He has been ranked as one of twenty most cited legal scholars in judicial opinions, including landmark Supreme Court cases on the First and Second Amendments.[3]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Early life and education</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Professional career</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">3<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Scholarship</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Awards and honors</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">5<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>References</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">6<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>External links</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Early life and education[</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Winkler, born and raised in Los Angeles, is the youngest son of Academy Award-winning film producer Irwin Winkler. As a child, he had small acting parts in movies, including appearing as the son of Robert De Niro and Liza Minnelli in Martin Scorsese's New York, New York (1977). He holds a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service from Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, a Juris Doctor from New York University School of Law, and a Master's degree in political science from UCLA where he studied under Karen Orren.[4]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Professional career[</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Winkler served as a law clerk to judge David Thompson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1995-96. As a young lawyer, Winkler practiced with prominent trial lawyer Howard Weitzman and represented Michael Jackson in his defense against charges of sexual assault.[5]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He has taught at UCLA School of Law since 2002,[5] receiving tenure in 2007. Prior to joining the faculty at UCLA, he was the John M. Olin Fellow at the University of Southern California Law School from 2001-02.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Scholarship[</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights,[1] was a finalist for the 2018 National Book Award for Nonfiction, the National Book Critics Circle Award, the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award, the California Book Award, and received the Scribes Book Award. The book chronicles the astonishing story of one of the most successful yet least well-known “civil rights movements” in American history. Uncovering the roots of Citizens United v. FEC.[6] On We the Corporations, Zephyr Teachout in a New York Times Sunday cover book review said “Winkler’s chief contribution is to show how corporations have been some of the most important innovators in American law, shaping it for good and often ill.”[7] Another review by Vox held “it is deeply shocking that We the Corporations is not boring”[8] and United States Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer was quoted as saying "it is a good book."[9]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Winkler's writing on the right to bear arms, which is notable for nuanced position—recognizing both the individual right to possess firearms and the legitimacy of effective gun control—has been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous lower courts.[10] His book Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America details the importance of the right to bear arms throughout American history, while also showing how that right has been balanced with laws to enhance gun safety since the founding era. The New Yorker called the book "remarkably nuanced"[11] and the Wall Street Journal called it "an engaging and provocative legal drama … and a fascinating survey of the misunderstood history of guns and gun control in America.”[12] Gunfight was later the subject of question on the American game show Jeopardy![13]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Winkler has also written extensively on legal history topics including the origins of campaign finance law,[14] the women's suffrage movement,[15] the regulation of political parties.[16] He has also done quantitative research on constitutional law issues[17] including a study that disproved the well accepted legal maxim that strict scrutiny is "'strict' in theory, but fatal in fact."[18] He found that federalism was a hidden factor in free speech jurisprudence, with nearly 56% of federal laws burdening core speech rights upheld, compared to 23% of state laws and only 3% of local laws.[19] Along with Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Leonard Levy and UCLA School of Law professor Kenneth Karst, Winkler edited the six-volume Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.[20]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Winkler's popular writing has also appeared in the New York Times, New York Review of Books, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, New Republic, Atlantic, Slate, Scotusblog, and Daily Beast. He is a frequent commentator about legal issues and has appeared on Face the Nation, CNN, NBC Nightly News, C-SPAN, PBS Newshour, ABC News, All Things Considered, Morning Edition, and Marketplace.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Awards and honors[</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Winkler has won multiple awards and honors for his work including the Scribes Book Award. His book We the Corporations also made him a finalist for the 2018 National Book Award for Nonfiction, the National Book Critics Circle Award, the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award, the California Book Award.[21] In 2018, his alma mater, NYU, awarded him its Law Teaching Award, which is given to great teachers for their scholarship and dedication to the education and training of law students.[22] Winkler also currently serves on the board of directors at the Brennan Center for Justice.[23]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Reference</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/roe-supreme-court-justices-1378046/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">at?&nbsp; an evangelical victory party in front of the Supreme Court to celebrate the downfall of Roe v. Wade last week, a prominent Capitol Hill religious leader was caught on a hot mic making a bombshell claim: that she prays with sitting justices inside the high court. “We’re the only people who do that,” Peggy Nienaber said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This disclosure was a serious matter on its own terms, but it also suggested a major conflict of interest. Nienaber’s ministry’s umbrella organization, Liberty Counsel, frequently brings lawsuits before the Supreme Court. In fact, the conservative majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which ended nearly 50 years of federal abortion rights, cited an amicus brief authored by Liberty Counsel in its ruling.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[Related Stories</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Texas' Most Famous Abortion Provider Is Closing Its Doors</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Worst Person You Know Just Made a Great Point: 'Roe v. Wade' Edition]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In other words: Sitting Supreme Court justices have prayed together with evangelical leaders whose bosses were bringing cases and arguments before the high court.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nienaber is Liberty Counsel’s executive director of DC Ministry, as well as the vice president of Faith & Liberty, whose ministry offices sit directly behind the Supreme Court. She spoke to a livestreamer who goes by Connie IRL, seemingly unaware she was being recorded. “You actually pray with the Supreme Court justices?” the livestreamer asked. “I do,” Nienaber said. “They will pray with us, those that like us to pray with them.” She did not specify which justices prayed with her, but added with a chortle, “Some of them don’t!” The livestreamer then asked if Nienaber ministered to the justices in their homes or at her office. Neither, she said. “We actually go in there.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nienaber intended her comments, broadcast on YouTube, to be “totally off the record,” she says in the clip. That’s likely because such an arrangement presents a problem for the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, which not only weighed in on the Dobbs case as a friend of the court, but also litigated and won a 9-0 Supreme Court victory this May in a case centered on the public display of a religious flag.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Supreme Court did not respond to a request for comment. Liberty Counsel’s founder, Mat Staver, strenuously denied that the in-person ministering to justices that Nienaber bragged about exists. “It’s entirely untrue,” Staver tells Rolling Stone. “There is just no way that has happened.” He adds: “She has prayer meetings for them, not with them.” Asked if he had an explanation for Nienaber’s direct comments to the contrary, Staver says, “I don’t.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But the founder of the ministry, who surrendered its operations to Liberty Counsel in 2018, tells Rolling Stone that he hosted prayer sessions with conservative justices in their chambers from the late-1990s through when he left the group in the mid-2010s. Rob Schenck, who launched the ministry under the name Faith and Action in the Nation’s Capital, described how the organization forged ministry relationships with Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and the late Antonin Scalia, saying he would pray with them inside the high court. Nienaber was Schenk’s close associate in that era, and continued with the ministry after it came under the umbrella of Liberty Counsel.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Louis Virelli is a professor at Stetson University College of Law who wrote a book about Supreme Court recusals. He’s blunt in his assessment: “Praying with a group that filed an amicus brief with a court,” he says, “is a problem.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Barbara Abshire, center, of Baltimore, and Peggy Nienaber of Lorton, Md., unpack flowers for use in the "Encircle the Court in Prayer," event led by Christian faith organizations on the eve of the Supreme Court arguments on President Obama's health care legislation, in Washington, Sunday, March 25, 2012. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Peggy Nienaber, right, at an event outside the Supreme Court led by Christian faith organizations on the eve of the Supreme Court arguments on President Obama’s health care legislation in 2012.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the shadow of the high court, across the street from its chambers, sits a cluster of unassuming row houses known only to the initiated as “Ministry Row.” The strip is host to evangelical political groups that have spent the past several decades pushing Beltway conservatives to embrace the religious right’s political causes — and, most of all, reverse Roe v. Wade. The street view offers few clues as to what transpires behind the painted brick facades, save for a granite slab inscribed with the Ten Commandments planted in the grassy patch before a modest cream-colored Victorian with maroon trim.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The home serves as Faith & Liberty’s headquarters. The Ten Commandments statue had been placed there by Schenck, an evangelical minister famous for orchestrating high-profile anti-abortion stunts, such as shoving an aborted fetus in a plastic container into the face of former President Bill Clinton during the 1992 campaign. Schenck had opened the ministry in the 1990s as Faith and Action in the Nation’s Capital, a nonprofit dedicated to ending federal abortion rights. The organization operated on a “utopian ‘trickle-up’ theory” of influence: building access “higher and higher up within the government, until we got to the top, my ultimate target — members of Congress, U.S. senators, cabinet secretaries, Supreme Court justices — even presidents,” Schenck wrote in his 2018 autobiography.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The group established a strong foothold in both chambers of Congress and, eventually, the White House. But Faith and Action ultimately directed its energies toward the judicial branch. “There were no pro-life groups directly approaching the judges and justices, who shaped abortion law simply by their precedent-setting decisions,” Schenck wrote. “We knew we were stuck with members of the federal bench — they were appointed for life — so why not convert them while in office?” (Schenck has since reversed course: He is now a fierce critic of evangelical politicking and says Liberty Counsel assumed Faith and Action’s operations in 2018. He says he has no knowledge of the group’s inner workings after he left.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At first, the high court regarded Faith and Action and its peer organizations as nuisances, according to Schenck. “Justice Thomas would say to me, ‘You know those groups outside? Are they crazy or are they good people?’” Schenck recalls in an interview with Rolling Stone. When Schenck first began his approach in 1994, prayer activities on the Supreme Court’s property was considered an act of demonstration, and therefore illegal. Eventually, Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas would embrace Schenck, he says, and pray with him in various corners of the high court’s grounds — including, occasionally, in their chambers. (Chief Justice John Roberts, meanwhile, remained more guarded and skeptical of such groups’ influence.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">To pray with the justices was to perform a sort of “spiritual conditioning,” Schenck explains. “The intention all along was to embolden the conservative justices by loaning them a kind of spiritual moral support — to give them an assurance that not only was there a large number of people behind them, but in fact, there was divine support for very strong and unapologetic opinions from them.” Prayer is a powerful communication tool in the evangelical tradition: The speaker assumes the mantle of the divine, and to disagree with an offered prayer is akin to sin. “It’s just not common to interrupt or challenge a prayer,” Schenck explains. “That’s not something a devout Supreme Court justice would ever consider doing.” That was true even for the devout Catholic justices, such as Scalia, who joined the evangelical Faith and Action members in prayer, Schenck says.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sometimes the prayers would be general; other times, on specific subjects, such as ending abortion, according to Schenck. He says Faith and Action took assiduous care to avoid speaking blatantly about cases in the Supreme Court’s pipeline, discussing the political agenda only in broad strokes. Even so, under the time period Schenck describes, prayers with the justices occurred as Faith and Action signed onto several amicus briefs for landmark SCOTUS cases such as Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, which ultimately upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Schenck walked away from his life on the Hill after receiving a late-career doctorate on the teachings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German pastor who questioned the collaborative relationship between Adolf Hitler and 1930s German evangelicals. He drew parallels between the Republican Party and American evangelicalism, concerned that he’d weaponized worship to fuel a hate-filled agenda. No longer an anti-abortion activist, Schenck views his past efforts with regret. “Prayer is a positive exercise, until it’s politicized — and too many prayers that I and my colleagues offered in the presence of the justices were political prayers,” he explains. He also believes the work “contributed to the internal moral and ethical corruption of the justices at the court,” he says.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I was sure, while we were doing it, it would be a positive contribution to our public life,” Schenck says. “It didn’t have the effect I thought it would. In some ways, it set the stage for the reversal of Roe, which I now think of as a social catastrophe.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When Liberty Counsel absorbed Faith and Action in 2018, Peggy Nienaber, who had worked alongside Schenck since at least 2005, continued with the group. In a July 2021 conversation with Staver, Liberty Counsel’s founder, Nienaber described the group’s new incarnation as similar to Faith and Action’s mission. It’s “the ministry right here on Capitol Hill,” she said, devoted to “changing the hearts and minds of not only our elected officials, but the staffers all the way down.” Nienaber highlighted Faith & Liberty’s proximity to the court by pointing to the window of the conference room where the justices decide their cases. ”When you’re sitting in that conference room, you cannot miss those Ten Commandments,” she said. (Faith & Liberty sits so close to the Supreme Court, in fact, that it has been included in the “buffer zone” surrounding the high court, shut off to protesters and the public. There’s irony here, given that Liberty Counsel has for decades&nbsp; litigated to abolish buffer zones near abortion clinics.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“There’s a lot of things that Faith & Liberty does — and that you do — that obviously we can’t put in an email, can’t put in a newsletter, can’t put in a press release,” Staver said to Nienaber during their chat, “because it’s private relationships that are spiritually transformative.” Nienaber’s social media accounts show her hobnobbing with high-profile Republicans such as Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) and former Vice President Mike Pence. She hung close to the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018: She posted photographs from inside the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing room, as well as a screenshot of her invitation to Kavanaugh’s swearing-in ceremony.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nienaber told Rolling Stone, “I do not socialize with the justices.” Yet she has posed for photos with Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas, calling the latter a “friend” in a Facebook post, praising him for “passing by our ministry center to attend church and always taking time to say hello.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In addition to her proximity to conservative power players, Nienaber has championed the plaintiffs who have brought right-wing religious causes before the Supreme Court. Ahead of oral arguments, she prayed with Joe Kennedy, the football coach who recently succeeded in his suit to allow prayer during football games. Liberty Counsel also filed an amicus brief in that case, calling on the court to rule that the school district “engaged in viewpoint discrimination against Coach Kennedy’s private speech.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nienaber was recorded telling the livestreamer that she prayed with Supreme Court justices on June 27, the Monday after the high court issued the Dobbs ruling. She was at a celebration she helped organize with Sean Feucht, a prominent Christian-worship musician. Nienaber identifies herself only as “Peggy” in the footage, but she references the ministry she runs behind the court and its 850-pound replica of the Ten Commandments. For most of the interview, Nienaber is not on camera. But when the video pans on her briefly, she can be seen wearing the same dress and necklace she has on in a selfie with Feucht posted to Faith & Liberty’s website.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Last week, Rolling Stone spoke to Patty Bills, the director of constituency affairs at Faith & Liberty. Bills did not want to discuss Faith & Liberty’s ministry practices, citing privacy concerns. Bills would not, however, deny that Faith & Liberty ministers to Supreme Court justices. “I never said we didn’t — I just said we provide privacy,” she said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Staver, in denying that members of Faith & Liberty prayed with Supreme Court justices, says that such prayers would have been inappropriate, especially given Liberty Counsel’s litigation efforts. “That’s why we wouldn’t do that,” he says. “And especially on cases that are pending before the Supreme Court, we would make a very clear firewall. We just would never do something like that.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a written statement to Rolling Stone, Nienaber says of her hot-mic comments: “I do not recall making such a statement. I listened to the livestream, and I did not hear such a statement.” She adds that Covid restrictions have limited public access to the Supreme Court: “The public has not been allowed access, and I am no different.” When she has had access to public areas of the court, she says, “I will generally silently pray for the justices, their staff, and the Court.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But after this story was published, Nienaber acknowledged her remarks and conceded she has prayed personally with Supreme Court justices. Despite speaking in the present tense on the livestream, Nienaber asserted, “My comment was referring to past history and not practice of the past several years.” Nienaber added: “During most of the history up to early 2020, I met with many people who wanted or needed prayer. Since early 2020, access to the Supreme Court has been restricted due to COVID. It has been many years since I prayed with a Justice.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Liberty Counsel was founded in 1989 by Staver. The organization is an uncommon hybrid of religious ministry and legal practice, dedicated to “advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the family through strategic litigation.” Staver is the organization’s senior pastor as well as its top litigator. This mix of law and religion is central to Staver’s career; he previously served as dean of the law school at Liberty University, founded by the televangelist Jerry Falwell.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Staver has argued numerous cases in front of the Supreme Court. He started in 1994 in a case that struck a blow against protest-limiting buffer zones near abortion clinics. In the court’s most recent term, Staver argued and won a 9-0 judgment in Shurtleff v. Boston, a case in which the court ruled a Christian flag couldn’t be excluded from a public flagpole that displayed a rotating assortment of secular flags.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Staver also wrote an amicus brief in the Dobbs case that purports to tie abortion and birth control to eugenics. Calling Roe “the low watermark in this Court’s history,” it argued that Dobbs was ”an ideal vehicle for the Court to finally overrule Roe v. Wade and its progeny, which have constitutionalized eugenic abortions as a fundamental right.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the Dobbs majority opinion written by Justice Alito, he cited this brief to impugn the motives of pro-abortion-rights advocates, arguing that “some such supporters have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African American population,” adding, “it is beyond dispute that Roe has had that demographic effect,” because “a highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are Black.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When Roe v. Wade was reversed, Staver was triumphant: “I have dedicated my life to defend life and overturn the bloody decisions of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey,” he wrote. “This global earthquake will impact the world.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Prayer unto itself in no way presents a conflict of interest for the justices, says Russell Wheeler, a visiting fellow of governance studies at the Brookings Institution, not even with a group like Faith & Liberty that has business before the court. Justices are allowed to visit there with whomever they’d like in their private chambers, and have socialized with interested parties throughout the court’s history. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for example, routinely played cards with the high court’s magistrates, and Scalia went duck hunting with former Vice President Dick Cheney. What would amount to an ethical concern would be if they’re discussing those cases as they pray — “or if the prayer sessions would influence how justices rule in a particular case,” says Adam Winkler, a Supreme Court expert at the University of California Los Angeles.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But even among legal experts troubled by the court’s ties, they acknowledge there are few remedies to address ethical conflicts. A federal statute governs when judges and justices should step away from cases, but the Constitution leaves questions of partiality to the justices themselves. Their general unwillingness to step aside isn’t necessarily a bad thing, Virelli, the Stetson law professor, says: When justices recuse themselves from a case, no one replaces them, a scenario that can create more problems than it solves. “The court changes shape,” he explains. “That makes the decision to recuse difficult.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That the justices are their own keepers in regard to those rules creates complications, however, says Steve Vladeck, a constitutional-law expert at the University of Texas Law School. The relationship between Faith & Liberty and Liberty Counsel, as described by Rolling Stone, “could make a reasonable observer worry about the appearance of partiality,” he says. But the concerns the scenario raised shouldn’t be about recusal. “What that really reveals is how problematic it is that there isn’t an objective mechanism to resolve these sorts of questions.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For Winkler, the greater concern is not prayers, but the “religious-themed” decisions he’s seen come down from the high court this term, pointing to not only the Roe reversal but also opinions that permit unchecked free exercise of First Amendment rights. “The problematic aspect isn’t whether they’re praying,” Winkler says, “but that several justices seem committed to reading their religion into the Constitution.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">jane mayer che</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...In all, by the time it closed its doors in 2005, the Olin foundation had supported 11 separate programs at Harvard, burnishing the foundation's name and ideas and proving that even the best-endowed American university would allow an outside ideological group to build "beachheads," so long as the project was properly packaged and funded.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On top of these programs, the foundation doled out $8 million to more than a hundred John M. Olin faculty fellows. These funds enabled scores of young academics to take the time needed to do research and write in order to further their careers. The roster of recipients includes John Yoo, the legal scholar who went on to become the author of the George W. Bush administration's controversial "torture memo" legalizing the American government's brutalization of terror suspects.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Without the rigorous peer-review standards required by prestigious academic publications, the Olin foundation was able to inject into the mainstream a number of works whose scholarship was debatable at best. For example, Olin-foundation funds enabled John R. Lott Jr., then an Olin fellow at the University of Chicago, to write his influential book More Guns, Less Crime. In the work, Lott argued that more guns actually reduce crime and that the legalization of concealed weapons would make citizens safer.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Politicians advocating weaker gun-control laws frequently cited Lott's findings. But according to Adam Winkler, the author of Gunfight, Lott's scholarship was suspect. Winkler wrote that "Lott's claimed source for this information was 'national surveys,"' which under questioning he revised to just one survey that he and research assistants had conducted. When asked to provide the data, Winkler recounts, Lott said he had lost it in a computer crash. Asked for any evidence of the survey, writes Winkler, "Lott said he had no such evidence." (Proving that the recipients of Olin funds weren't ideologically monolithic, Winkler, too, had received funds from the foundation.)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/03/corporations-people-adam-winkler/554852/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">BUSINESS</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">‘Corporations Are People’ Is Built on an Incredible 19th-Century Lie</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How a farcical series of events in the 1880s produced an enduring and controversial legal precedent</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By Adam Winkler</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[An archival caricature of a railroad baron swallowing America’s train lines</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A 1907 caricature of the railroad baron Edward H. Harriman swallowing America’s train lines. (Luther Bradley / Library of Congress / Corbis / Getty)]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">MARCH 5, 2018</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Somewhat counterintuitively, American corporations today enjoy many of the same rights as American citizens. Both, for instance, are entitled to the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. How exactly did corporations come to be understood as “people” bestowed with the most fundamental constitutional rights? The answer can be found in a bizarre—even farcical—series of lawsuits more than 130 years ago involving a lawyer who lied to the Supreme Court, an ethically challenged justice, and one of the most powerful corporations of the day.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That corporation was the Southern Pacific Railroad, owned by the robber baron Leland Stanford. In 1881, after California lawmakers imposed a special tax on railroad property, Southern Pacific pushed back, making the bold argument that the law was an act of unconstitutional discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. Adopted after the Civil War to protect the rights of freed slaves, that amendment guarantees&nbsp; every “person” the “equal protection of the laws.” Stanford’s railroad argued that it was a person too, reasoning that just as the Constitution prohibited discrimination on the basis of racial identity, so did it bar discrimination against Southern Pacific on the basis of its corporate identity.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The head lawyer representing Southern Pacific was a man named Roscoe Conkling. A leader of the Republican Party for more than a decade, Conkling had even been nominated to the Supreme Court twice. He begged off both times, the second time after the Senate had confirmed him. (He remains the last person to turn down a Supreme Court seat after winning confirmation). More than most lawyers, Conkling was seen by the justices as a peer.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It was a trust Conkling would betray. As he spoke before the Court on Southern Pacific’s behalf, Conkling recounted an astonishing tale. In the 1860s, when he was a young congressman, Conkling had served on the drafting committee that was responsible for writing the Fourteenth Amendment. Then the last member of the committee still living, Conkling told the justices that the drafters had changed the wording of the amendment, replacing “citizens” with “persons” in order to cover corporations too. Laws referring to “persons,” he said, have “by long and constant acceptance … been held to embrace artificial persons as well as natural persons.” Conkling buttressed his account with a surprising piece of evidence: a musty old journal he claimed was a previously unpublished record of the deliberations of the drafting committee.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Years later, historians would discover that Conkling’s journal was real but his story was a fraud. The journal was in fact a record of the congressional committee’s deliberations, but, upon close examination, it offered no evidence that the drafters intended to protect corporations. It showed, in fact, that the language of the equal-protection clause was never changed from “citizen” to “person.” So far as anyone can tell, the rights of corporations were not raised in the public debates over the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment or in any of the states’ ratifying conventions. And prior to Conkling’s appearance on behalf of Southern Pacific, no member of the drafting committee had ever suggested that corporations were covered.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There’s reason to suspect that Conkling’s deception was uncovered back in his time too. The justices held onto the case for three years without ever issuing a decision, until Southern Pacific unexpectedly settled the case. Then, shortly after, another case from Southern Pacific reached the Supreme Court, raising the exact same legal question. The company had the same team of lawyers, with the exception of Conkling. Tellingly, Southern Pacific’s lawyers omitted any mention of Conkling’s drafting history or his journal. Had those lawyers believed Conkling, it would have been malpractice to leave out his story.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When the Court issued its decision on this second case, the justices expressly declined to decide if corporations were people. The dispute could be, and was, resolved on other grounds, prompting an angry rebuke from one justice, Stephen J. Field, who castigated his colleagues for failing to address “the important constitutional questions involved.” “At the present day, nearly all great enterprises are conducted by corporations,” he wrote, and they deserved to know if they had equal rights too.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rumored to carry a gun with him at all times, the colorful Field was the only sitting justice ever arrested—and the charge was murder. He was innocent, but nonetheless guilty of serious ethical violations in the Southern Pacific cases, at least by modern standards: A confidant of Leland Stanford, Field had advised the company on which lawyers to hire for this very series of cases and thus should have recused himself from them. He refused to—and, worse, while the first case was pending, covertly shared internal memoranda of the justices with Southern Pacific’s legal team.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The rules of judicial ethics were not well developed in the Gilded Age, however, and the self-assured Field, who feared the forces of socialism, did not hesitate to weigh in. Taxing the property of railroads differently, he said, was like allowing deductions for property “owned by white men or by old men, and not deducted if owned by black men or young men.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So, with Field on the Court, still more twists were yet to come. The Supreme Court’s opinions are officially published in volumes edited by an administrator called the reporter of decisions. By tradition, the reporter writes up a summary of the Court’s opinion and includes it at the beginning of the opinion. The reporter in the 1880s was J. C. Bancroft Davis, whose wildly inaccurate summary of the Southern Pacific case said that the Court had ruled that “corporations are persons within … the Fourteenth Amendment.” Whether his summary was an error or something more nefarious—Davis had once been the president of the Newburgh and New York Railway company—will likely never be known.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Field nonetheless saw Davis’s erroneous summary as an opportunity. A few years later, in an opinion in an unrelated case, Field wrote that “corporations are persons within the meaning” of the Fourteenth Amendment. “It was so held in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad,” explained Field, who knew very well that the Court had done no such thing.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">His gambit worked. In the following years, the case would be cited over and over by courts across the nation, including the Supreme Court, for deciding that corporations had rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Indeed, the faux precedent in the Southern Pacific case would go on to be used by a Supreme Court that in the early 20th century became famous for striking down numerous economic regulations, including federal child-labor laws, zoning laws, and wage-and-hour laws. Meanwhile, in cases like the notorious Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), those same justices refused to read the Constitution as protecting the rights of African Americans, the real intended beneficiaries of the Fourteenth Amendment. Between 1868, when the amendment was ratified, and 1912, the Supreme Court would rule on 28 cases involving the rights of African Americans and an astonishing 312 cases on the rights of corporations.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The day back in 1882 when the Supreme Court first heard Roscoe Conkling’s argument, the New-York Daily Tribune featured a story on the case with a headline that would turn out to be prophetic: “Civil Rights of Corporations.” Indeed, in a feat of deceitful legal alchemy, Southern Pacific and its wily legal team had, with the help of an audacious Supreme Court justice, set up the Fourteenth Amendment to be more of a bulwark for the rights of businesses than the rights of minorities. ...Adam Winkler is a professor at the UCLA School of Law. He is the author of We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights and Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.<[boad code] https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/Corporate-personhood-actually-limits-12721448.php">...ctivists in Wyoming have been gathering signatures for a ballot measure calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, the controversial Supreme Court decision saying that corporations had the same right as individuals to spend money to influence elections. The proposed 28th Amendment, which has already been endorsed by 19 states and public interest groups like Common Cause and Public Citizen, would limit rights to people — and declare, once and for all, that corporations are not people.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Especially in the wake of President Trump’s business-friendly tax bill, frustration with corporate power...Corporate personhood is a foundational principle of business law. It means that a corporation has its own independent identity in the eyes of the law. The corporate entity is wholly separate from the people who form it, own it, manage it or finance it. That’s why if your toaster explodes, you have to sue the company that makes the toaster. You can’t sue the company’s shareholders. The company and its shareholders are distinct legal persons, with different legal rights and duties.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Wyoming activists and Common Cause pin decisions like Citizens United and the subsequent Hobby Lobby case, which held that corporations have religious liberty rights under a federal statute, on corporate personhood. In fact, however, the Supreme Court rarely treats corporations as their own legal persons in cases dealing with the constitutional rights of corporations.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And there have been many such cases.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The first Supreme Court case on the rights of corporations was in 1809. (For some perspective, the first Supreme Court cases on the rights of African Americans and women were not decided until 1857 and 1873, respectively.) Over the past 200 years, corporations have brought lawsuits seeking nearly every individual right, from the freedom of speech to the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures....>The Supreme Court has often ruled in favor of corporations — but not because corporations are people. The justices typically say instead that corporations have rights because they are made up of people. Corporations take on the rights of their members....In the Hobby Lobby case, for example, the Supreme Court allowed the national chain of craft stores to exclude birth control from employee health plans on grounds of religion. Although the case was brought in the name of Hobby Lobby, the corporation, to challenge a legal duty imposed on Hobby Lobby, the corporation, Justice Samuel Alito’s...said the birth control requirement burdened the religious liberty of Hobby Lobby’s owners, David and Barbara Green and their children...In Citizens United, the Supreme Court never says that corporations are people. It describes corporations as “associations of citizens,” focusing again on the members. Corporations today have nearly all the same rights as individuals because the court allows them to assert the rights of their members, who are themselves individuals.<..It looks like the justices may take the same approach in themaster cake caswe]who refused to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. Although Colorado imposes the legal duty not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation on the bakery, a for-profit corporation, the justices during oral argument focused almost exclusively on the rights of the bakery owner.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Of course, the bakery owner would insist on the strict legal separation between him and the corporation if a customer slipped and fell in the store. Yet he wants to ignore that separation when deciding which customers to serve. He wants to, well, eat his cake and have it, too.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Supreme Court should instead treat corporations as people — as separate and distinct legal entities with rights of their own. Rather than simply allowing corporations to assert the rights of their members, we should ask which rights corporate entities should have.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a few cases over the past 200 years, the Supreme Court has treated corporations as independent people, separate and apart from their members. The result, surprisingly, has been to limit the rights of corporations.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A century ago, when the government tried to break up the tobacco trust, the tobacco firms claimed that their right against self-incrimination would be violated if their own executives were required to testify against them. The Supreme Court disagreed. The executives and the corporations were wholly separate legal persons and the Fifth Amendment protects only against self-incrimination.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The proposed 28th Amendment, however, would take all rights away from corporations. But that cannot be the right answer.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If corporations do not have property rights, the government could seize Google’s campus and turn it into a park without paying a dime in compensation. Without due process rights, Apple would not be able to challenge the FBI’s demand to unlock a terrorist’s iPhone. Newspaper corporations could be censored at the whim of Congress.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Corporate persons need certain basic rights to fulfill their economic function. But not until Citizens United and Hobby Lobby were business corporations thought to have a right to influence elections for public office or have religious liberty entitling them to exemptions from laws that apply to every other business. As legally organized entities required by law to pursue wealth, corporations lack the autonomy and conscience upon which these rights are based.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The question is not whether corporations should have rights but which rights corporations should have. Today’s steady expansion of corporate rights is a product of giving corporations the same rights as their members. Instead, we should treat corporations as separate legal persons — with only those rights appropriate for corporations.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;Ciara Torres-Spelliscy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">, Corporate Citizen?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">----</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Divine Right of Capital</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dethroning the Corporate Aristocracy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">by Kelly, Marjorie</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">3.4 out of 5 stars</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Book - 2001</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">330.122 Kelly</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">sjpl</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We the Corporations</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">by Winkler, Adam</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4.3 out of 5 stars</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Book - 2018</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">346.7306 Winkler</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">harv law rev of winkler bk we the corps</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://harvardlawreview.org/2019/05/corporate-personhood-v-corporate-statehood/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2011, at the Iowa State Fair, presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave a pitch for why fairgoers should support him in the upcoming caucuses.1</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">×</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1. Ashley Parker, “Corporations Are People,” Romney Tells Iowa Hecklers Angry over His Tax Policy, N.Y. TIMES (Aug. 11, 2011), https://nyti.ms/2vKK5JN [https://perma.cc/9LDT-2QX7].</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Show More</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;As an audience milled around him munching on fried snacks, Romney promised to be responsible. “We have to make sure that the promises we make in Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are promises we can keep, and there are various ways of doing that,” he said. “One is we could raise taxes on people — ”2×</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2. CNN, Romney: Corporations Are People Too at 00:30, YOUTUBE (Aug. 12, 2011), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxUsRedO4UY [https://perma.cc/5FXB-9RXS].</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Show More</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cover for We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By Adam Winkler. New York, N.Y.: W.W. Norton & Co. Pp. xxiv, 471. $28.95.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Before he could continue, Romney was interrupted by a heckler who had his own idea of who should pay down the nation’s financial obligations: “Corporations!”3×</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">3. Id. at 00:40.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;Romney flashed a smile. “Corporations are people, my friend,” he said.4×</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4. Id. at 00:42.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;When another audience member responded with a fact — “No, they’re not” — Romney persisted.5×</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">5. Id. at 00:44.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;“Of course they are,” he said.6×</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">6. Id. at 00:45.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;“Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?”7×</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">7. Id. at 00:46.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;This answer prompted the first heckler to erupt into a belly laugh while a third responded, “It goes into their pockets!”8×</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">8. Id. at 00:52.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;At this point, Romney glowed with the triumph of a law professor giving the closing blow of a Socratic dialogue. “Whose pockets? People’s pockets!” he said before returning to entitlements.9×</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-winkler-how-corporations-won-the-right-to-personhood-20180302-story.html</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2018</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">WINKLER</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">MARCH 2, 20184:10 AM</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The most high-profile case the Supreme Court will decide this term involves a Colorado bakery that refused to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. is hardly the first for-profit corporation to claim a constitutional right to refuse to do business with unwanted customers. But in the era of Citizens United, with the Supreme Court increasingly sympathetic to claims of corporate “personhood,” the bakery has a much better chance of winning than it would have had in the past.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The long history of corporations claiming the same constitutional rights as “We the People” stretches back over two centuries. The court has sometimes resisted, but in fits and starts, business’s persistence has paid off. Today companies have almost the same rights as you and me, and they use those rights to challenge laws regulating business and the economy.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ever-expanding liberty rights for corporations make it harder for our elected representatives to regulate business for the public good.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">More than a century ago, the Supreme Court first considered whether corporations could pick and choose their customers. The corporation that ran Tanforan Racetrack, in San Bruno, later home of the legendary Seabiscuit, challenged a California law requiring places of public amusement to admit anyone with a valid ticket. The track, which had an exclusive deal to sell a particular racing form, wanted to keep out the publisher of a competing guide.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Supreme Court in those days was in the midst of the notoriously business-friendly Lochner era — named after a case striking down a law that had capped the number of hours bakers could be made to work each week. The Lochner court overturned scores of laws curbing business, including federal child labor laws, minimum wage laws and zoning laws. Corporations flooded the courts with constitutional claims.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And yet, despite their clear pro-business leanings, the justices of the Lochner era had limits. They held that corporations had “property” rights but not “liberty” rights.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Businesses needed basic protections for their property and assets, the court said. If corporations had no property rights, the reasoning went, government could take a company’s factories or buildings to build a park without having to pay any compensation. But corporations did not have liberty rights — the rights associated with autonomy, conscience or political freedom.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Applying this principle, the Supreme Court refused to grant corporations the right against self-incrimination. Corporations, unlike people, were not subject to the coercion that right was designed to prevent. Nor did corporations have a constitutional right to spend money on elections. According to a lower court in 1916, the right to influence elections belonged to “natural and not artificial persons.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The corporation in the Tanforan Racetrack case insisted that its 1st Amendment rights to associate with only those whom it wanted at the track “were as sacred as those of the citizen at his fireside.” Should the court require the company to admit the rival racing-form producer it would be like allowing “the newspaper reporter to force his way into a private reception and against the wish of the host.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Supreme Court wasn’t persuaded. California, the justices explained, had the clear authority to regulate businesses open to the public “for the well-being, comfort, and good order of the people.” Moreover, the corporation was claiming a liberty right protected by the Constitution only for “natural, not artificial persons.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Lochner court’s distinction between property rights and liberty rights couldn’t withstand the concerted efforts of corporations to challenge it. It was weakened by a number of decisions, particularly when news-media corporations won somewhat unique freedom of speech rights. An important turning point came in 1978: In a 5-4 decision, the court held that corporations had the same free speech right as individuals to spend money on ballot-measure campaigns.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The majority opinion was written by Justice Lewis Powell Jr., who only months before joining the court in 1971 had written an influential memorandum for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce outlining a strategy for the political mobilization of corporate America. A response to Ralph Nader and the growing consumer rights and environmental movements, the Powell Memorandum is often credited with inspiring businesses to become more vocal in public policy debates.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Corporations would use their widening liberty rights, especially freedom of speech, to overturn laws that required graphic tobacco warnings, disclosure of hormones in dairy products, and that restricted advertising practices.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nonetheless, for another 30 years the distinction between natural and artificial persons continued to block corporate spending in candidate campaigns — until Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. Holding that corporations have the same free speech right as individuals to spend their money to influence candidate elections, the Supreme Court’s controversial 2010 decision was the logical result of Powell’s 1978 decision.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And now Masterpiece Cakeshop is seeking even broader 1st Amendment rights, permitting it to discriminate against same-sex couples. The claim is that a custom wedding cake is a form of expression deserving free speech protection: If the cakemaker doesn’t want to make a cake for two men who are getting married, he shouldn’t have to.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ever-expanding liberty rights for corporations make it harder for our elected representatives to regulate business for the public good. If the court sides with Masterpiece Cakeshop, states like Colorado that believe that civic equality is only possible if businesses that serve the public are open to everyone will be hamstrung in their efforts. Florists, invitation printers, dressmakers, caterers and makeup artists could all claim the goods they provide are as deserving of protection as a wedding cake.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If today’s Supreme Court disagrees with the Lochner era justices about the Constitution’s stand on unwanted customers, same-sex couples will see their rights diminish in the marketplace. The rights of corporations, on the other hand, will be secure.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Adam Winkler is a professor of law at UCLA. His latest book is “We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/03/corporations-people-adam-winkler/554852/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Somewhat unintuitively, American corporations today enjoy many of the same rights as American citizens. Both, for instance, are entitled to the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. How exactly did corporations come to be understood as “people” bestowed with the most fundamental constitutional rights? The answer can be found in a bizarre—even farcical—series of lawsuits over 130 years ago involving a lawyer who lied to the Supreme Court, an ethically challenged justice, and one of the most powerful corporations of the day.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That corporation was the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, owned by the robber baron Leland Stanford. In 1881, after California lawmakers imposed a special tax on railroad property, Southern Pacific pushed back, making the bold argument that the law was an act of unconstitutional discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. Adopted after the Civil War to protect the rights of the freed slaves, that amendment guarantees to every “person” the “equal protection of the laws.” Stanford’s railroad argued that it was a person too, reasoning that just as the Constitution prohibited discrimination on the basis of racial identity, so did it bar discrimination against Southern Pacific on the basis of its corporate identity.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The head lawyer representing Southern Pacific was a man named Roscoe Conkling. A leader of the Republican Party for more than a decade, Conkling had even been nominated to the Supreme Court twice. He begged off both times, the second time after the Senate had confirmed him. (He remains the last person to turn down a Supreme Court seat after winning confirmation). More than most lawyers, Conkling was seen by the justices as a peer.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It was a trust Conkling would betray. As he spoke before the Court on Southern Pacific’s behalf, Conkling recounted an astonishing tale. In the 1860s, when he was a young congressman, Conkling had served on the drafting committee that was responsible for writing the Fourteenth Amendment. Then the last member of the committee still living, Conkling told the justices that the drafters had changed the wording of the amendment, replacing “citizens” with “persons” in order to cover corporations too. Laws referring to “persons,” he said, have “by long and constant acceptance … been held to embrace artificial persons as well as natural persons.” Conkling buttressed his account with a surprising piece of evidence: a musty old journal he claimed was a previously unpublished record of the deliberations of the drafting committee.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Years later, historians would discover that Conkling’s journal was real but his story was a fraud. The journal was in fact a record of the congressional committee’s deliberations but, upon close examination, it offered no evidence that the drafters intended to protect corporations. It showed, in fact, that the language of the equal-protection clause was never changed from “citizen” to “person.” So far as anyone can tell, the rights of corporations were not raised in the public debates over the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment or in any of the states’ ratifying conventions. And, prior to Conkling’s appearance on behalf of Southern Pacific, no member of the drafting committee had ever suggested that corporations were covered.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There’s reason to suspect Conkling’s deception was uncovered back in his time too. The justices held onto the case for three years without ever issuing a decision, until Southern Pacific unexpectedly settled the case. Then, shortly after, another case from Southern Pacific reached the Supreme Court, raising the exact same legal question. The company had the same team of lawyers, with the exception of Conkling. Tellingly, Southern Pacific’s lawyers omitted any mention of Conkling’s drafting history or his journal. Had those lawyers believed Conkling, it would have been malpractice to leave out his story.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When the Court issued its decision on this second case, the justices expressly declined to decide if corporations were people. The dispute could be, and was, resolved on other grounds, prompting an angry rebuke from one justice, Stephen J. Field, who castigated his colleagues for failing to address “the important constitutional questions involved.” “At the present day, nearly all great enterprises are conducted by corporations,” he wrote, and they deserved to know if they had equal rights too.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rumored to carry a gun with him at all times, the colorful Field was the only sitting justice ever arrested—and the charge was murder. He was innocent, but nonetheless guilty of serious ethical violations in the Southern Pacific cases, at least by modern standards: A confidant of Leland Stanford, Field had advised the company on which lawyers to hire for this very series of cases and thus should have recused himself from them. He refused to—and, even worse, while the first case was pending, covertly shared internal memoranda of the justices with Southern Pacific’s legal team.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The rules of judicial ethics were not well developed in the Gilded Age, however, and the self-assured Field, who feared the forces of socialism, did not hesitate to weigh in. Taxing the property of railroads differently, he said, was like allowing deductions for property “owned by white men or by old men, and not deducted if owned by black men or young men.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So, with Field on the Court, still more twists were yet to come. The Supreme Court’s opinions are officially published in volumes edited by an administrator called the reporter of decisions. By tradition, the reporter writes up a summary of the Court’s opinion and includes it at the beginning of the opinion. The reporter in the 1880s was J.C. Bancroft Davis, whose wildly inaccurate summary of the Southern Pacific case said that the Court had ruled that “corporations are persons within … the Fourteenth Amendment.” Whether his summary was an error or something more nefarious—Davis had once been the president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company—will likely never be known.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Field nonetheless saw Davis’s erroneous summary as an opportunity. A few years later, in an opinion in an unrelated case, Field wrote that “corporations are persons within the meaning” of the Fourteenth Amendment. “It was so held in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad,” explained Field, who knew very well that the Court had done no such thing.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">His gambit worked. In the following years, the case would be cited over and over by courts across the nation, including the Supreme Court, for deciding that corporations had rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Indeed, the faux precedent in the Southern Pacific case would go on to be used by a Supreme Court that in the early 20th century became famous for striking down numerous economic regulations, including federal child-labor laws, zoning laws, and wage-and-hour laws.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Meanwhile, in cases like the notorious Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), those same justices refused to read the Constitution as protecting the rights of African Americans, the real intended beneficiaries of the Fourteenth Amendment. Between 1868, when the amendment was ratified, and 1912, the Supreme Court would rule on 28 cases involving the rights of African Americans and an astonishing 312 cases on the rights of corporations.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The day back in 1882 when the Supreme Court first heard Roscoe Conkling’s argument, the New-York Daily Tribune featured a story on the case with a headline that would turn out to be prophetic: “Civil Rights of Corporations.” Indeed, in a feat of deceitful legal alchemy, Southern Pacific and its wily legal team had, with the help of an audacious Supreme Court justice, set up the Fourteenth Amendment to be more of a bulwark for the rights of businesses than the rights of minorities.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">evil b/c corps grab progressive wins, eg 14th, PACs,&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">newspaper co's 1936 huey Long, 2c tax on lies (ad tax),scotus?&nbsp; broadens press rights</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">lewis powell and raplh nader 70's drugs (Va pharamcy ads with drug prices) = listener's right --> CU</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">apple fended off fbi req on iphone based on corp personhood?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">webster hired by corps, won them rights?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">14th --> brown v bd, lgbt</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bank of US v devo</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_the_United_States_v._Deveaux</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">interview fundraising</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://kpfa.org/episode/letters-and-politics-may-16-2018/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp; &nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">nom scotus 2x? last guy to turn down after confirm b/c making too much $ as lawyer for RR (he said explicitly)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">adam winkler&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://kpfa.org/episode/letters-and-politics-october-3-2018/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">28 14th AA mostly lost, v 311</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">sprr 2nd 1corp pers case?!</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">corps use personhood to override legislation</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">apple v fbi iphone</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">hwy thru ggl campus w/ compensation</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">but corps do not need ALL rights of ppl ([where to draw line? they have lots of lawyers ad lobbyists]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">huey long LA put advert tax on newspapers (on lies) so newspapers sued (corps) pentagon paPERS,, V BALDWIN TO CrIT GOvT OFFICIALS</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1st AMend expand NaDer consumer pharmacy advertize drug prices land mark case, consumer have 1st amebnd listener's right jiu jitsu to CU</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">4th, PAC etc co-opt left/progressive to expand corp power (nader Va case led to many uses to DISadvantage consumer?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1st Roman, had to re-org on ppl die; mining corps 1st mass pollution</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">roman cath church claims in 3rd C AD;&nbsp; in MA used for non-biz eg NRA sierra club now</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">corps use personhood to override legislation</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">apple v fbi iphone</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">hwy thru ggl cam[us w/ compensation</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">but corps do not need ALL rights of ppl ([where to draw line? they have lots of lawyers ad lobbyists]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">huey long LA put advert tax on newspapers (on lies) so newspapers sued (corps) pentagon paPERS,, V BALDWIN TO CrIT GOvT OFFICIALS</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1st AMend expand NaDer consumer pharmacy advertize drug prices land mark case, consumer have 1st amebnd listener's right jiu jitsu to CU</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lewis pwl ~ nader; memo turned into const law; --> ballot measure;--> CU</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">corps seek new rights eg masterpiece bakeshop LTD</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">60's race cases clained const protection but lost.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">talk pm download</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sulr/vol30/iss4/2/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/05/books/review/adam-winkler-we-the-corporations.html</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">z teachout</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Around 300 B.C., the Romans invented a new way for a group of people to buy property and enter into contracts. Instead of making deals with a partner or set of partners, people could use a legal fiction that they were an entity, a societas publicanorum. This new institution was owned and controlled by investors, but legally separate from them. The privilege to act as a societas publicanorum was rare, and required a decree by the Roman Senate or the emperor.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nearly 2,000 years later, versions of this legal innovation came to be used by English businesses, churches, guilds and cities, and by the investors behind the Virginia Company in colonial America. They were known as corporations. Like the societas publicanorum, corporations required a special charter from the king, giving its owners powerful but limited rights: the right to collectively hold property, form contracts and have access to the courts. Corporations were quasi-public, and each corporate charter was unique, comprising highly detailed rules including how much the corporation could charge for its products. Eventually, corporate investors gained a special prize: the privilege of limited liability, which allowed them to avoid personal legal responsibility for the corporation’s actions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">These corporations did not merely come to America; according to Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, arguably they founded it. From 1607, when the Virginia Company established the Jamestown colony, corporations have been inextricably embedded in American life, Winkler maintains in his excellent and timely new book, “We the Corporations.” The corporation of the British East India Company inspired the colonists in a different way. The bailout of the company by England — including the Tea Act of 1773, which lowered the price of tea in the colonies while preserving the tax colonists paid on it — infringed the colonial charters and led to the protests that were instrumental in sparking the Revolutionary War.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Winkler’s chief contribution is to show how corporations have been some of the most important innovators in American law, shaping it for good and often ill. Since the early days of the Republic, corporations have invested substantial capital in some of the country’s most talented and charismatic lawyers, pushed risky lawsuits and been on the “cutting edge” of rights-making. They have not been passive recipients of legal change but, rather, among its most significant architects.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Winkler frames this history provocatively, as an ongoing “civil rights” movement for corporations, which “have pursued a longstanding, strategic effort to establish and expand” their rights in American constitutional law. He proves his thesis by recounting two dozen critical moments when corporations pushed the limits of existing law and mostly won new rights. While the corporation of early America was an “artificial person” — Blackstone’s term — for purposes of property ownership, contracts and lawsuits alone, Winkler shows how “today corporations have nearly all the same rights as individuals: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, religious liberty, due process, equal protection, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to counsel, the right against double jeopardy and the right to trial by jury.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights Adam Winkler</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Corporations have rarely won rights by trumpeting their own importance, or openly arguing for civil rights. Instead, over generations, they have succeeded by claiming that corporate rights are necessary and useful tools for vindicating the rights of others — of people. In the first major corporate-rights case, in 1809, the issue was whether a bank had the right to sue in federal court. Given the politics of the time, the bank was likely to lose in state court. The problem was that the Constitution gave access to federal court only to “citizens.” Instead of trying to argue that a corporation is a person qua person, the bank’s lawyer insisted that the rights of the owners — an association of people — would be trampled on if the bank couldn’t be heard in federal court. The Supreme Court acquiesced.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One hundred and seventy years later, in another bank case, the question was similar but more momentous: Did Massachusetts have the right to limit corporate spending around popular referendums? In this case, First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Supreme Court concluded that it violated the First Amendment rights of the people of Massachusetts for the state to discriminate among different sources of information. It was not that the bank had a right to speak but that the public had a right to hear the views of the bank, and the state had no right to outlaw those communications merely because they came from a corporation. The bank won the lawsuit, because it stood in for the rights of the people who might want to hear its political views. Winkler contributes fascinating original reporting to this case, uncovering notes between justices and clerks that changed the outcome of the case, which in turn laid the groundwork for the decision in Citizens United.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.c-span.org/video/?427014-8/we-corporations</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.amazon.com/We-Corporations-American-Businesses-Rights/dp/0871407124</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">winkler ucla</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We the Corporations chronicles the revelatory story of one of the most successful, yet least known, “civil rights movements” in American history.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We the Corporations chronicles the astonishing story of one of the most successful yet least well-known “civil rights movements” in American history. Hardly oppressed like women and minorities, business corporations, too, have fought since the nation’s earliest days to gain equal rights under the Constitution―and today have nearly all the same rights as ordinary people.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Exposing the historical origins of Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, Adam Winkler explains how those controversial Supreme Court decisions extending free speech and religious liberty to corporations were the capstone of a centuries-long struggle over corporate personhood and constitutional protections for business. Beginning his account in the colonial era, Winkler reveals the profound influence corporations had on the birth of democracy and on the shape of the Constitution itself. Once the Constitution was ratified, corporations quickly sought to gain the rights it guaranteed. The first Supreme Court case on the rights of corporations was decided in 1809, a half-century before the first comparable cases on the rights of African Americans or women. Ever since, corporations have waged a persistent and remarkably fruitful campaign to win an ever-greater share of individual rights.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Although corporations never marched on Washington, they employed many of the same strategies of more familiar civil rights struggles: civil disobedience, test cases, and novel legal claims made in a purposeful effort to reshape the law. Indeed, corporations have often been unheralded innovators in constitutional law, and several of the individual rights Americans hold most dear were first secured in lawsuits brought by businesses.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Winkler enlivens his narrative with a flair for storytelling and a colorful cast of characters: among others, Daniel Webster, America’s greatest advocate, who argued some of the earliest corporate rights cases on behalf of his business clients; Roger Taney, the reviled Chief Justice, who surprisingly fought to limit protections for corporations―in part to protect slavery; and Roscoe Conkling, a renowned politician who deceived the Supreme Court in a brazen effort to win for corporations the rights added to the Constitution for the freed slaves. Alexander Hamilton, Teddy Roosevelt, Huey Long, Ralph Nader, Louis Brandeis, and even Thurgood Marshall all played starring roles in the story of the corporate rights movement.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.sfchronicle.com/books/article/We-the-Corporations-by-Adam-Winkler-12789809.php</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div></div>