Romney's Illogical "Corporations Are People" Stance

39

Romney's Illogical "Corporations Are People" Stance

Of all the staggering revelations to come out of the Republican leadership race — like Sarah Palin’s alleged drug use and Rick Perry’s rather confusing stance on the Middle East — one of the more amazing was former Massachusettes Governor Mitt Romney’s remarks on corporations several weeks ago.

His claim that “corporations are people” might be worrying, but is echoed in the U.S. Constitution itself. The Fourteenth Amendment legally enshrines corporations as human beings, eligible to the same rights and protections as citizens.

So-called “corporate personhood” protects corporations on the grounds that “no State can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” It was originally introduced to protect African-Americans after the Civil War, but generations of corporate lawyers have flipped the coin.

Standing knee-up on a hay bale like John Wayne, cast as a Goldman Sachs trader, Romney was responding to hecklers’ demands to increase progressive taxation on the rich, at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines. But he was also regurgitating over a century of legal history. “Corporations are people, my friend,” he said. “Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?”

The logic that leads Romney to this conclusion is far from polished. Hypothetically speaking, if my shoe made money and that revenue came back to me, would that make my shoe a person? This is what Romney appears to be arguing. If a shoe is a person, then is a government a person too?

Perhaps Romney is portraying corporations as squeaky-clean arbiters in by-the-people, for-the-people exchanges of power and finance? Wrong again. Corporations are legally accountable to their stockholders, not the public.

It is estimated that offshore corporate tax havens cost the U.S. at least $100 billion every year. Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) has also demonstrated how 12 of the U.S.’s largest companies engage in tax fraud. And it’s the taxpayer that suffers. In a list including Dupont, General Electric, Boeing, and Verizon Communications, Exxon Mobil paid the highest tax at 14.2% - 20.8% below the statutory tax rate.

If these corporations were people, they would be criminals. 

What Romney should have said was: “Corporations are abstract 'persons' according to constitutional law, my friend. Everything corporations earn, bamboozle, and conceal ultimately goes to a minority of very rich people. Where do you think it should go?” It doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.

When Romney says he believes in America, he’s not wrong. The governor is simply legitimising a century-old constitutional loophole on the campaign trail. Romney is a product of an age where politicians are businessmen first, and statesmen second — or third.

Recently, a trader from Goldman Sachs chillingly told BBC News: “Governments don’t rule the world. Goldman Sachs rules the world.” And yesterday, it was revealed over half of the UK Conservative Party’s post-election bankrolls come from the City (Britain's Wall Street), the largest percentage from hedge funds.

It is one thing to pretend a corporation is human, but another to portray it as a good, honest human. The fallout from the 2008 Great Recession was proof enough of what corporatism is capable of. We should be making the right reforms to make sure it will never happen again.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

39

Sign up to join the discussion

Reply to this article
view profile

Tom Rollins

I grew up in the North of England, which has always defined my politics. I'm interested in class, free-market capitalism and Western imperia...

Most Mic'd Response

weekly-winner-headshot-fpo

Paul Anderson

Ehhh - I'm going to stick my neck out here and defend Romney. His only point was that increasing corporate income taxes (by eliminated loopholes/subsidies/whatever) will increase the taxes of an actual person. Or people. He's right. It was a politically dumb thing to say, but he wasn't wrong. To his credit, he didn't wade into the Citizens United debate and declare that corporations have the right to free speech. He didn't say that corporations should be allowed to fund political campaigns anonymously, because otherwise, there would be a "chilling" effect on their free speech rights. That's the sort of nonsense that you're arguing against. And I agree with you 100%. But I think Romney avoided that.

Watch the PolicyMic Video Join PolicyMic

The Discussion

If someone told you not to fire a cannon at a ship, because after all "those ships are people!", would you accuse him of mistakenly thinking that ships really are human beings, or that ships have all the rights of human beings?

Romney *clearly* wasn't talking about corporate personhood.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Does anyone think if we raise the corporate tax rates we're going to see less money in off shore accounts? Maybe our own onerous corporate tax system is to blame in the first place? The GOP is supporting a plan to lower the rate, to make us more competitive, and doing away with all the loopholes and corporate welfare/subsidies. Doing away with the loopholes/subsidies would go a long way toward reducing the influence of lobbyists in DC. Simpson Bowles recommended essentially the same thing. Instead of playing class warfare in hopes of lifting his 2012 prospects, Obama would be wise to cut a deal w/ the GOP on real tax reform. That would be the best thing we could do for the job market.

  • Mic this! 3
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

1 Replies

  • John Giokaris 7 months ago http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Aew...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Aewj_IndN4

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

The great disparity in Republican ideology is how vehemently they demonize government as evil (and necessarily attempt to limit or event abolish aspects of it as a result of this thinking), yet glorify corporations as beacons of hope and virtue. Is it really logical to assume oil companies have the best interests of average Americans at heart, or that financial giants like Goldman-Sachs really, truly enrich the lives of the majority?

  • Mic this! 4
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

7 Replies

  • Gary W. Patterson, Jr. 7 months ago I don't think anyone would say...

  • Edward Lalone 7 months ago Republicans don't demonize gov...

  • Ken Strote 7 months ago I do not believe that most conserva...

I don't think anyone would say corporations have the best interest of average Americans at heart. Corporations are designed to earn a profit. The desire to earn a profit is what benefits society. Steve Jobs and Apple want to make profit, lots of it. Because of that desire, countless Americans benefit; the people who work for Apple, those who sell the products; those who make accessories to their products, etc. . .

Corporations aren't run by some computer. There are people at the helm, and people collecting the pay checks.

Btw, many lives have been enriched by Goldman Sachs. If not for their investment in countless companies, there would be far fewer people employed today. You need capital to start a business and grow it.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Republicans don't demonize government as evil instead they recognize its limits and seek to keep it out of matters that doesn't concern it. Corporations are made up of people just like government and are no more "beacons of hope and virtue" than government yet government are angels who enrich us?

  • Mic this! 3
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I do not believe that most conservatives think corporations have the best interests of average Americans at heart. Conversely, the people running corporations are acting solely in self-interest. However, that self-interest means creating the best possible product or service for consumers.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I made no mention of governments being paragons; on the contrary, I was trying to argue that both government and corporations are not necessarily "angelic" by any standard, yet too often conservatives forget that government can be a vehicle for good just as corporations can be. Both are fallible because they are composed of human beings. The limitations and potential of abuse that exist in governmental considerations can logically be extended to corporations.

  • Mic this! 3
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I would argue that government in general tries to be a vehicle for good while corporations try to maximize shareholder value, seeming to indicate that government would do a better job in helping people. Time and again this proves to be untrue. Greed is a tremendous motivator for inadvertent good.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I don't trust governments or corporations. But the difference between the two is that I can influence governments. I can't influence corporations. People can spare me the nonsense about "consumer power". That's a joke...especially when we're talking about goods or services where my demand is inelastic.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!
  • No longer with us
  • 7 months ago

This account has been disabled.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

I believe his comment was meant figuratively versus literally. Corporations are not people (legal entities yes), but they were created by people, run by people, and owned by people. People (shareholders) benefit from the success of corporations. Sort of like saying "We are Marshall"...

  • Mic this! 5
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

While the thought is not my own, I would appreciate your consideration of the following common sense contention, "Corporations have no right to vote and as such should not have the same rights as individuals." My reason for inquiry is extension of Free Speech rights granted in Citizen United. TY.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

6 Replies

  • Gary W. Patterson, Jr. 7 months ago A trade union doesn't have a r...

  • Ken Strote 7 months ago Trying to decide who (or what entit...

  • Rick Mathews 7 months ago Gary, I do not pretend to know the ...

A trade union doesn't have a right to vote either. Does that mean they shouldn't be able to pool money and make political contributions?

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Trying to decide who (or what entity) should or shouldn't have the right to free speech is impossibly difficult. The best solution really is to have little to no restrictions on free speech but ensure absolute transparency regarding all contributions so you know exactly who is behind it.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Gary, I do not pretend to know the answer to all questions. I would contend Trade Union, Corporations do have a right to contribute to political campaigns promoting their respective interests. I do though think somehow restrictions on organizations must be found constitutionally supportable by S.C.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

While I agree in theory, I remain uncertain your thought can ever achieve its desired effect. The assets available to support a candidate or promote a message by Corporations, Trade Unions, Super Pacs, today often drowns out all other attempts at communications. That fact is my concern.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

There are regulations on corporate campaign donations. Citizens United didn't do away with all campaign finance regualtions.

I would also point out that in today's era of social media it's not going to take billions of dollars to sway public opinion. That is probably the greatest contribution of the new technology.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Gary, my concern is centered on the cornerstone of campaign strategy, "get the most bang for your buck." The "undecided voter" remains the target of choice in traditional campaign advertising. Attempting to sway his/her vote through "spun" Ads requires assets few private citizens can match.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Ehhh - I'm going to stick my neck out here and defend Romney. His only point was that increasing corporate income taxes (by eliminated loopholes/subsidies/whatever) will increase the taxes of an actual person. Or people. He's right. It was a politically dumb thing to say, but he wasn't wrong.

To his credit, he didn't wade into the Citizens United debate and declare that corporations have the right to free speech. He didn't say that corporations should be allowed to fund political campaigns anonymously, because otherwise, there would be a "chilling" effect on their free speech rights. That's the sort of nonsense that you're arguing against. And I agree with you 100%. But I think Romney avoided that.

  • Mic this! 6
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

the 14th amendment DOES NOT enshrine corporations as people. It says:"All persons born or naturalized. . ." A corporation cannot be either born or naturalized. Person-hood as it pertains to corporations came about from a forward to a supreme court case. That forward has NO LEGAL STANDING and was written by a court clerk and not a justice. It is NOT part of a decision and congress can decide at any time (if only they would) to strip corporations of not only any privileges they might have but to disallow their very existence.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person

Yes, this is a big deal. If I liked everything else about Romney (I don't) that statement would be enough to lose me.

  • Mic this! 5
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

6 Replies

  • Gary W. Patterson, Jr. 7 months ago Disallow the existence of corporati...

  • Darwin Long 7 months ago Gee Gary, maybe if we had the spine...

  • Harrison Goldspiel 7 months ago Yes because those are the only two ...

Disallow the existence of corporations? I guess we should all just work for the state?

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Gee Gary, maybe if we had the spine to do so we could work for ourselves.

Oh, wait, I do.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Yes because those are the only two options we have Gary - working for corporations or the state? Are you forgetting about the millions of Americans working in small businesses, enterprises, and organizations? Corporate power in America is ridiculous, and destructing the basic values of democracy. The capacity to participate in our government decision-making process has been slipping through our fingers. America seems to be embracing corporatism, a fascist principle, more than ever. And its largely because of the enormous sway that corporations have over politics, and their underlying drive to make as much profit as possible, regardless of the extraneous costs.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Harrison, it seems you don't understand that "businesses and enterprises" are corporations. If you have one employee, and conduct business, you'd be a fool not to form a corporation. By forming a corporation, you can protect your personal assets from liability. Almost all of us who work in the private sector are employed by corporations of some sort, even if we are solo practitioners.

As for Darwin, I guess you think we would all be better off as 275 million separate little units. Not really sure how we build cars, airplanes, I-pads etc. without hiring some people. I wonder how much an I-Pad would cost if Steve Jobs built every one by hand in his garage.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

You're right about that clarification. Many small businesses can technically be corporations. But I was really referring to large corporations that abuse their power over people and government. If corporations really are "people" shouldn't their voice have no more sway than an individual person?

And Darwin, I like your point about the value of individual labor. But if everyone was completely independent and autonomous, what kind of society would this become? I think its more important to stress the importance of reducing our reliance on corporations and building community relationships rather than being completely self-sufficient.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Not all enterprises are corporations, and by your statement Gary, you show the inherent dishonesty of a corporation.

"By forming a corporation, you can protect your personal assets from liability"

They aren't built to help anyone but the majority owners. If they happen to make life better for anyone else, its only because they can't avoid it. They don't help their customers, they take all they can from them. They don't purposely help their employees, they take as much as possible and give as little as they can get away with. Corporate executives, being unwilling to bet their house that they are doing the right job, don't do the right job once they get big enough.

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!
  • No longer with us
  • 7 months ago

This account has been disabled.

  • Mic this! 2
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

What Romney meant when he was facing down the heckler that day was corporations are run by people who display the same symptoms of human behavior like anyone else, and not these faceless, evil robotic entities that some try to caricature them as. This doesn't excuse anyone or any company of any wrongdoing. But progressive taxation, or even constant threats of it, stifles economic activity and disincentivizes long term planning, expansion, hiring, and risking capital. It's no coincidence that the private sector has remained dead in the water for the last 3 years. No one knows what long term regulations, healthcare costs, or tax rates are going to be. Pro-growth tax reform will jumpstart the economy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Aewj_IndN4

  • Mic this! 3
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

4 Replies

  • Paul Anderson 7 months ago Agree with you. Romney was just say...

  • Paul Anderson 7 months ago more on that last point: The fed...

  • John Giokaris 7 months ago You got some fair points Paul, I se...

Agree with you. Romney was just saying that corporate taxes impact people.

Disagree on the uncertainty canard. There's no evidence that REGULATORY uncertainty is having an impact on business behavior. Any smart entrepreneur knows that regulations come and go and that the ebb and tide of government intervention isn't something to get worked up about. The biggest questions (if you're about to hire or launch a startup) is whether you will have a market for your product, and whether you will be able to produce it cheaply. Can you get a low interest loan? Do you have enough investment capital? No one frets about hypothetical nonsense. Plus - regulations are largely set.
http://www.epi.org/publication/regulatory-uncertainty-phony-explanation/

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

more on that last point:

The federal regs from progressive legislative boomlet of 09-10 (the one that anti-Obama liberals deny ever happened) are mostly set. Legislation is available for reading online, and it's not changing. If I'm an entrepreneur and I'm obsessed with regulations and looking at the near term regulatory landscape, there is very little uncertainty. The only uncertainty is whether the super committee address demand and help me sell some goods. But beyond that, political gridlock will continue in DC. Nothing will be passed. Things are frozen and will remain so for a while.

If I were a venture capitalist and I was speaking with someone looking to launch a start-up and they were whining about reg. uncertainty, I'd walk away.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

You got some fair points Paul, I see what you're saying. To a point, you're right, any business who feels one more regulation or one more tax will kill their business obviously isn't on sound footing to begin with, the government excuses are just a scapegoat. And you're right, business owners & employers should be prepared for gridlock in D.C. when it happens, and judging by how high they're stacking their cash coffers, they are. But at the end of the day, certain actions from D.C. do help or hurt economic activity. However you felt about the Bush tax cuts for instance, at least he set their lifespan for 10 years. Boom, these are the tax rates for the next 10 years. That's setting a predictable, stable business environment to plan ahead in.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

@Paul, actually many of the regulations are yet to be written in association with both Dodd/Frank and Obamacare. These laws are clearly having a stifling effect on the economy.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Where, exactly, does the 14th Amendment "enshrine" corporations as human beings? Corporations aren't counted for representation. Corporations don't vote. Corporations are "made of" people in the same sense that unions or churches or other groups are made of people. They shouldn't have special rights

  • Mic this! 1
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

5 Replies

  • Tom Rollins 7 months ago Precisely because they have been sn...

  • John Rambo 7 months ago Corporate law is complex, but corpo...

  • Jon Awbrey 7 months ago Corporations have no inalienable, n...

Precisely because they have been sneaked in as a "person", as part of the quoted line: "no State can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Through case law and legal precedent - which I'm sure you're more familiar with than I am - corporations became woven into the U.S. constitution as a nominal "person" in the 14th Amendment, thereby becoming "enshrined" in the Constitution just the same as you and your rights, or those of any other American citizen.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Corporate law is complex, but corporations have no more constitutional rights than other types of group. Groups don't have a right to vote beyond the rights of their individual members, they do not count for representation, etc. But govt can't place special regs on groups that unduly burden members.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!
  • No longer with us
  • 7 months ago

This account has been disabled.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!

Should a group of individuals who organize as a corporation have less right to influence public policy than a group of individuals organized as a union? Of course not.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!
  • No longer with us
  • 7 months ago

This account has been disabled.

  • Mic this! 0
  • Reply
char limit
Please wait before posting another comment to this article. Thanks!
Join PolicyMic

What is PolicyMic?