The idea of “corporate personhood” has been a controversial debate since it was established in the 1819 court case, Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward. This ruling gave corporations constitutional recognition and therefore, the same constitutional rights as individual citizens. However, it has since been constantly debated.
Up until 2010, for nearly two hundred years, corporations were limited in using their treasury funds for direct political advocacy. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court debated the question, ‘is money a form of free speech?’ in the game-changing Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee case. The final vote was 5-4, a narrow ruling in favor of the idea that money is a form of speech. Since corporations are considered to be people with First Amendment rights, it would be unconstitutional to limit their donations to Political Action Committees (PACs). Before the ruling, PACs only took donations from individuals, but now, corporations are able to give unlimited amounts of money in order to support and/or defeat political candidates.
Adding fuel to the fire, the Supreme Court determined that corporations also have the right to religious freedom in the 2014 case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. As corporations consistently gain more rights, one must ask themselves: should corporations be allowed to donate unlimited amounts to Super PACs?
This site presents three different views on the effects of the heavily disputed ruling. One perspective debates the definition of personhood and who should be included in receiving Constitutional rights, while another has alternative ideas as to what should be done in light of recent events. These views are often strongly correlated with party affiliation, but some views are universal and stretch across the entire ideological spectrum.
Up until 2010, for nearly two hundred years, corporations were limited in using their treasury funds for direct political advocacy. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court debated the question, ‘is money a form of free speech?’ in the game-changing Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee case. The final vote was 5-4, a narrow ruling in favor of the idea that money is a form of speech. Since corporations are considered to be people with First Amendment rights, it would be unconstitutional to limit their donations to Political Action Committees (PACs). Before the ruling, PACs only took donations from individuals, but now, corporations are able to give unlimited amounts of money in order to support and/or defeat political candidates.
Adding fuel to the fire, the Supreme Court determined that corporations also have the right to religious freedom in the 2014 case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. As corporations consistently gain more rights, one must ask themselves: should corporations be allowed to donate unlimited amounts to Super PACs?
This site presents three different views on the effects of the heavily disputed ruling. One perspective debates the definition of personhood and who should be included in receiving Constitutional rights, while another has alternative ideas as to what should be done in light of recent events. These views are often strongly correlated with party affiliation, but some views are universal and stretch across the entire ideological spectrum.
All images taken from Flickr