Corporate rights movement: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (New article generated using Special:MetadataForm) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
The '''corporate rights movement''' desires extension of the traditional legal definition of the [[corporation]], from a legal entity that has existence and can own assets, into more traditional areas of [[human rights]], such as [[free speech]] and [[voting]]. | |||
==United States== | |||
In the United States, the movement is often seen to have become serious after [[Lewis Powell]], then in private law practice, wrote an analysis in 1971, to a friend on the [[U.S. Chamber of Commerce]], shortly before his appointment to the [[Supreme Court of the United States]].<ref>{{citation | |||
| url = http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/powell_memo_lewis.html | |||
| author = [[Lewis Powell]] | |||
| title = The Powell Memo | |||
| date = 23 August 1971 | |||
}}</ref> It is certainly not the only basis for the approach.<ref>{{citation | |||
| url = http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=9606 | |||
| title = The Legend of the Powell Memo: The idea that one man mapped out the entire right-wing infrastructure is appealing. Too bad it's not true. | |||
| author = Mark Schmitt |date = 27 April 2005 | |||
| journal = [[American Prospect]] | |||
}}</ref> | |||
The [[Supreme Court of the United States]] had long been seen as opposing the extension of such rights, with the key precedents being ''[[Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce]]'' (1990) and (2003).<blockquote>State law grants corporations special advantages – such as | |||
limited liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment of | |||
the accumulation and distribution of assets . . . These | |||
state-created advantages not only allow corporations to | |||
play a dominant role in the Nation’s economy, but also | |||
permit them to use ‘resources amassed in the economic | |||
marketplace’ to obtain ‘an unfair advantage in the political | |||
marketplace'<ref>Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, 658- 59 (1990) (</ref></blockquote> | |||
Recently, however, the free speech rights of corporations were extended to allow them political speech, by ''[[Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]]'' (2010). | |||
==Canada== | |||
==References== | |||
{{reflist|2}} | |||
Revision as of 23:19, 11 October 2010
The corporate rights movement desires extension of the traditional legal definition of the corporation, from a legal entity that has existence and can own assets, into more traditional areas of human rights, such as free speech and voting.
United States
In the United States, the movement is often seen to have become serious after Lewis Powell, then in private law practice, wrote an analysis in 1971, to a friend on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, shortly before his appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.[1] It is certainly not the only basis for the approach.[2]
The Supreme Court of the United States had long been seen as opposing the extension of such rights, with the key precedents being Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and (2003).
State law grants corporations special advantages – such as
limited liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets . . . These state-created advantages not only allow corporations to play a dominant role in the Nation’s economy, but also permit them to use ‘resources amassed in the economic marketplace’ to obtain ‘an unfair advantage in the political
marketplace'[3]
Recently, however, the free speech rights of corporations were extended to allow them political speech, by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010).
Canada
References
- ↑ Lewis Powell (23 August 1971), The Powell Memo
- ↑ Mark Schmitt (27 April 2005), "The Legend of the Powell Memo: The idea that one man mapped out the entire right-wing infrastructure is appealing. Too bad it's not true.", American Prospect
- ↑ Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, 658- 59 (1990) (