Abrams, Floyd, and Burt Neuborne. “Debating Citizens United.” Nation 292.5 (2011): 19-23. Academic Search Premier. Web.
Authors Abrams and Neuborne examine the aspects of freedom of speech in a Supreme Court decision that declared corporations and labor unions to have the same rights as individuals. The debated issue presented is, once again, the Citizens United v. FEC ruling and if it’s justified to allow corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence political elections. The first author, Abrams, agrees with the decision on the grounds established by the First Amendment (20). The second author, Neuborne, offers a dissenting view. The article also clears up some myths about what the Supreme Court ruling did actually establish and what it didn’t (19).
Bose, Purnima, and Laura E. Lyons. “Life Writing and Corporate Personhood.” Biography: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly 37.1 (2014): v-xxii. Academic Search Premier. Web.
The article contains a detailed overview of the developments and evolution of corporate personhood since as early as the 1800s to as recent as 2013 and their implications. This includes developments in jurisdiction, court cases, trends in the personifications of corporations and the expansion of defining personhood to areas such as unborn children, animals, and protection of the environment.
The authors argue that corporate personhood is enabling the unequal economic divide, especially since the recession in 2008, in the United States and that the power corporations have affect our daily lives (1). Questions are raised about the state of future relationships between individuals and corporations.
Hackney, Art. “Money in Politics: Time To Embrace It.” Campaigns & Elections (2010) 313 (2012): 48. Academic Search Premier. Web.
This article takes the position that having more money in politics makes our Republic better (48). Author Art Hackney argues that the media has too much free speech and influence during elections and unlimited money will allow everyone to be heard (48). He argues money is the only way the keep the voice of the public free flowing. Hackney explains how spending money in politics is something all interest groups already participate in (48). All voters want their issues to be represented so they will contribute to their candidate of choice. He appeals to the whole political spectrum by using the term “bipartisan” and presents evidence to prove how this change in the political industry is for the better (48).
Kirsch, Stuart. “Imagining Corporate Personhood.” Polar: Political & Legal Anthropology Review 37.2 (2014): 207-217. Academic Search
Premier. Web.
Kirsch examines how the idea of corporate personhood is fluid and ever-changing because of how corporations and the court go back and forth on categorizing it. He argues that inconsistent corporate rights are determined on a case-by-case matter and are thought of in non-legal contexts as well (207). He describes corporate personhood as a metaphor and compares the metaphorical similarities between corporations and the conventional individual (208).
Kirsch also analyzes how the existence of corporate personhood and its variations affects capitalism and individuals. It changes how managers think of themselves and how the government treats corporations due to their place in our economies (209) .
Rotondaro, Vinnie. “Ruling Extends Corporate Personhood.” National Catholic Reporter 50.20 (2014): 10-11. Academic Search Premier. Web.
A few years after corporations gained freedom of speech rights regarding money in the Citizens United v. FEC court case, corporations then gained religious rights in the 2014 case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. More specifically, corporations can now be exempt from abiding by a law if the owners religiously object to it. In the case with Hobby Lobby, the owners objected to paying for their employees contraception provided under the Affordable Care Act due to religious beliefs.
This newspaper article from National Catholic Reporter was published soon after the ruling and contains view points and reasoning from both supporters and opponents along with descriptions of the judges’ opinions. The article also mentions possible implications for the future of corporate religious freedoms (11).
Authors Abrams and Neuborne examine the aspects of freedom of speech in a Supreme Court decision that declared corporations and labor unions to have the same rights as individuals. The debated issue presented is, once again, the Citizens United v. FEC ruling and if it’s justified to allow corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence political elections. The first author, Abrams, agrees with the decision on the grounds established by the First Amendment (20). The second author, Neuborne, offers a dissenting view. The article also clears up some myths about what the Supreme Court ruling did actually establish and what it didn’t (19).
Bose, Purnima, and Laura E. Lyons. “Life Writing and Corporate Personhood.” Biography: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly 37.1 (2014): v-xxii. Academic Search Premier. Web.
The article contains a detailed overview of the developments and evolution of corporate personhood since as early as the 1800s to as recent as 2013 and their implications. This includes developments in jurisdiction, court cases, trends in the personifications of corporations and the expansion of defining personhood to areas such as unborn children, animals, and protection of the environment.
The authors argue that corporate personhood is enabling the unequal economic divide, especially since the recession in 2008, in the United States and that the power corporations have affect our daily lives (1). Questions are raised about the state of future relationships between individuals and corporations.
Hackney, Art. “Money in Politics: Time To Embrace It.” Campaigns & Elections (2010) 313 (2012): 48. Academic Search Premier. Web.
This article takes the position that having more money in politics makes our Republic better (48). Author Art Hackney argues that the media has too much free speech and influence during elections and unlimited money will allow everyone to be heard (48). He argues money is the only way the keep the voice of the public free flowing. Hackney explains how spending money in politics is something all interest groups already participate in (48). All voters want their issues to be represented so they will contribute to their candidate of choice. He appeals to the whole political spectrum by using the term “bipartisan” and presents evidence to prove how this change in the political industry is for the better (48).
Kirsch, Stuart. “Imagining Corporate Personhood.” Polar: Political & Legal Anthropology Review 37.2 (2014): 207-217. Academic Search
Premier. Web.
Kirsch examines how the idea of corporate personhood is fluid and ever-changing because of how corporations and the court go back and forth on categorizing it. He argues that inconsistent corporate rights are determined on a case-by-case matter and are thought of in non-legal contexts as well (207). He describes corporate personhood as a metaphor and compares the metaphorical similarities between corporations and the conventional individual (208).
Kirsch also analyzes how the existence of corporate personhood and its variations affects capitalism and individuals. It changes how managers think of themselves and how the government treats corporations due to their place in our economies (209) .
Rotondaro, Vinnie. “Ruling Extends Corporate Personhood.” National Catholic Reporter 50.20 (2014): 10-11. Academic Search Premier. Web.
A few years after corporations gained freedom of speech rights regarding money in the Citizens United v. FEC court case, corporations then gained religious rights in the 2014 case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. More specifically, corporations can now be exempt from abiding by a law if the owners religiously object to it. In the case with Hobby Lobby, the owners objected to paying for their employees contraception provided under the Affordable Care Act due to religious beliefs.
This newspaper article from National Catholic Reporter was published soon after the ruling and contains view points and reasoning from both supporters and opponents along with descriptions of the judges’ opinions. The article also mentions possible implications for the future of corporate religious freedoms (11).