Corporations Are Not People: Why They Have More Rights Than You Do and What You Can Do About It by Jeffrey D. Clements, Bill Moyers Page B
Authors: Jeffrey D. Clements, Bill Moyers
Ads: Link
corporations are just too big, too powerful, and in too many countries to be subjected to judgments of state law when they launch false feel-good public relations campaigns in response to criticism or when they spew lies about cigarettes, global warming, sweatshops, the rainforest, or anything else.
In the Supreme Court brief, the global corporations argued that Nike could not possibly guarantee “truth” (the brief itself uses quotation marks around the word
truth
) when Nike has “736 facilities located in the 51 countries in which 500,000 workers are used by its subcontractors to manufacture its products.” 9 In other words, Nike is too big, too global, and in too many countries exploiting cheap labor to possibly operate without potentially getting sued by someone for fraudulent statements. And we can’t have that, can we?
Why can’t we have that? If that really is a problem, it is an economic problem for Nike and its shareholders, not a constitutional problem for Americans. The slippery slope argument that the Court and the Constitution must step in to make sure that Nike does not find itself in court having to defend its false statements implies that Nike not only has a “right” to its corporate charter and privileges but also has a corporate “right” to operate in fifty-one countries and outsource jobs to impoverished areas of the world and the “right” to wage PR campaigns if people question the human impact of Nike’s decisions. Each of those, however, is a corporate policy preference, not a right.
Nike’s arguments state a business problem, not a constitutional problem. Nike could solve its business problem in a number of ways without fabricating constitutional rights to block the law. It could make its shoes in the United States. It could be smaller. It could price into its shoes the cost of defending itself from global human rights campaigns about its overseas sweatshops. It could ask the legislature to create an exception in the law for global corporations operating overseas sweatshops. Whether these options are unattractive or might raise the price of Nike sneakers or, God forbid, lower the share price has nothing to do with the Constitution. There is no constitutional right to cheap overseas labor and false marketing campaigns to make Americans feel better aboutlost jobs, human rights abuses, and immoral conduct. In the end, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Nike case, but we know how this story ends in
Citizens United.
The Consequences of Corporate Amorality and Crime
Corporate crime and allowing corporate power to slip out of control of the people have consequences. WellCare Health stole millions of dollars from a children’s health program in Florida. One of BP’s many crimes killed fifteen people in a Texas refinery. Massey Energy (now owned by Alpha Natural Resources) committed thousands of violations and killed twenty-nine people in a mine explosion in 2010. Volvo supported Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq by committing crimes to get heavy trucks and equipment around a United Nations sanction, and Credit Suisse criminally moved money around to evade American economic sanctions against dangerous regimes in the world.
Unchecked corporate power poisons food, water, and air, and people get sick and die. Workplaces are more dangerous, and people die. Markets are corrupted, and people lose their savings and jobs are wiped out. Taxes for most people are higher because corporations and the rich do not pay their share and hide money “offshore,” abetted by criminal international bank corporations.
The Court’s
Citizens United
decision failed to consider whether the problem of serial corporate crime and the reality of global corporate power exposed the fallacy of excess metaphorical thinking when it comes to corporations. Had the Court considered why Congress might have distinguished between corporations and people in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and the 1907 law banning
In the Supreme Court brief, the global corporations argued that Nike could not possibly guarantee “truth” (the brief itself uses quotation marks around the word
truth
) when Nike has “736 facilities located in the 51 countries in which 500,000 workers are used by its subcontractors to manufacture its products.” 9 In other words, Nike is too big, too global, and in too many countries exploiting cheap labor to possibly operate without potentially getting sued by someone for fraudulent statements. And we can’t have that, can we?
Why can’t we have that? If that really is a problem, it is an economic problem for Nike and its shareholders, not a constitutional problem for Americans. The slippery slope argument that the Court and the Constitution must step in to make sure that Nike does not find itself in court having to defend its false statements implies that Nike not only has a “right” to its corporate charter and privileges but also has a corporate “right” to operate in fifty-one countries and outsource jobs to impoverished areas of the world and the “right” to wage PR campaigns if people question the human impact of Nike’s decisions. Each of those, however, is a corporate policy preference, not a right.
Nike’s arguments state a business problem, not a constitutional problem. Nike could solve its business problem in a number of ways without fabricating constitutional rights to block the law. It could make its shoes in the United States. It could be smaller. It could price into its shoes the cost of defending itself from global human rights campaigns about its overseas sweatshops. It could ask the legislature to create an exception in the law for global corporations operating overseas sweatshops. Whether these options are unattractive or might raise the price of Nike sneakers or, God forbid, lower the share price has nothing to do with the Constitution. There is no constitutional right to cheap overseas labor and false marketing campaigns to make Americans feel better aboutlost jobs, human rights abuses, and immoral conduct. In the end, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Nike case, but we know how this story ends in
Citizens United.
The Consequences of Corporate Amorality and Crime
Corporate crime and allowing corporate power to slip out of control of the people have consequences. WellCare Health stole millions of dollars from a children’s health program in Florida. One of BP’s many crimes killed fifteen people in a Texas refinery. Massey Energy (now owned by Alpha Natural Resources) committed thousands of violations and killed twenty-nine people in a mine explosion in 2010. Volvo supported Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq by committing crimes to get heavy trucks and equipment around a United Nations sanction, and Credit Suisse criminally moved money around to evade American economic sanctions against dangerous regimes in the world.
Unchecked corporate power poisons food, water, and air, and people get sick and die. Workplaces are more dangerous, and people die. Markets are corrupted, and people lose their savings and jobs are wiped out. Taxes for most people are higher because corporations and the rich do not pay their share and hide money “offshore,” abetted by criminal international bank corporations.
The Court’s
Citizens United
decision failed to consider whether the problem of serial corporate crime and the reality of global corporate power exposed the fallacy of excess metaphorical thinking when it comes to corporations. Had the Court considered why Congress might have distinguished between corporations and people in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and the 1907 law banning
Similar Books
