1. I think you present a good argument that there is no reason a newspaper must disclose its editorial board’s composition. In the same way, we do not force people to publish blogs under their own names, either.

2. Not sure I understand the question?

3. Limited liability is the reason the legal technology of the corporation was invented.

4. This is settled law, regardless of the specific decision in this case.

5. Ditto.

Below are the questions/concerns Michael raised:

1. If my local newspaper publishes an editorial, I can look up the editorial board’s composition. But if a corporation exercises its right to free speech, who’s ideas are being expressed? The CEO’s? The Chairman of the Board’s? The Board’s as determined by a vote? A 3rd Assistant Executive Vice-President in charge of Corporate Communications’?

2. Do we treat it the same as a yours or my speech, as a sole proprietorship’s speech, a editorial board’s speech or something else entirely?

3. Who takes legal responsibility for that speech in libel cases or “yelling ‘fire’ in a theater” cases?

4. If a corporation as a whole is tried for a crime, would the testimony of employees be treated normally, or would it be considered self-incrimination?

5. If the corporation is found guilty, how do you gauge the severity of any attempt to punish it?

I assert my observation that corporations will abuse their new found rights as individuals because that manipulative behavior is so visible. What else do you call our current corporate welfare program?

Michael raised a serious, high-level point about the need for the set of laws that govern us to change with conditions. I agreed with his point — hardly ignoring, I think!

That said, your assertion that corporate personhood leads to “All pain and no gain” is refuted by 300 years of experience. Indeed, its two assertions are trivially untrue. It is closer to trolling than a contribution to a serious discussion.

Michael,
I share your concerns – corporations will claim all the beneficial rights of an “individual”, but will reject that label whenever a punitive repercussion emerges. When they find themselves under legal or political fire, they’ll return to the defense that they are simply invulnerable and amorphous entities where no one person can possibly be held responsible for the collective actions of many. We’ve already had a nice example of what that looks like of course: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60C1Y520100113

It’s no different than the corporate practice of privatizing profits and giving lip service to the “free-market system” telling individuals that we too can enjoy the benefits of capitalism. And then socializing their losses and failures – telling the taxpayers, the individuals, that it’s for our own good, and that different rules “must” apply to them.

All gain and no pain.

I think I agree with your direction. The Constitution outlines several methods of Constitutional change. One of the worst crimes of the Progressives was to advocate changing the Constitution through activists judges, as they did when they began limiting corporate free speech a century ago. We now have generations of people who cannot remember a time when if they didn’t like the Constitution, the appropriate method was to sponsor an amendment, rather than get their own activist judge on the court!

There was a point to the questions I was asking which a Burkean like yourself should be able to appreciate. The laws which govern our behavior are rooted in a time when corporate entities didn’t exist. The exact interpretation of our rights as laid out in the Constitution, how we’re tried in a court of law, what kind of punishments we’re subjected to if found guilty: How many of these things are written with a human in mind?

If we hear a human say something, we know he said it. If a partnership or sole proprietorship says something, we have a fair idea who’s idea is being expressed. If my local newspaper publishes an editorial, I can look up the editorial board’s composition. But if a corporation exercises its right to free speech, who’s ideas are being expressed? The CEO’s? The Chairman of the Board’s? The Board’s as determined by a vote? A 3rd Assistant Executive Vice-President in charge of Corporate Communications’? Do we treat it the same as a yours or my speech, as a sole proprietorship’s speech, a editorial board’s speech or something else entirely? Who takes legal responsibility for that speech in libel cases or “yelling ‘fire’ in a theater” cases?

The issue of corporate responsibility for criminal behavior has been in the news for years, already. If a corporation as a whole is tried for a crime, would the testimony of employees be treated normally, or would it be considered self-incrimination? If the corporation is found guilty, how do you gauge the severity of any attempt to punish it?

More paragraphs could be written about drafts, voting, electoral office and other things. Most of these laws, issues expressly voted on by Congress excepted, were written with the assumption of human citizenry. Assume corporate entities have constitutional rights, and you open up all these other questions. Ignore these questions and someone, corporate or human, is going to wind up on the short end of a lot of sticks.

I’m not a Burkean; if a change is important enough to require rapid changes in society, so be it. If it is big enough to require a fundamental rethink of many of our laws, well, it wouldn’t be the first time. But I do think it’s fair to ask tough questions.

“That’s the very definition of judicial activism.”

I have never heard this before.

I don’t see how failing to follow stare decisis fundamentalism (which I know of no one who has ever advocated) is “judicial activism.” In fact, the only way I could see someone supporting such a definition is that it is so broad, it allows one to opportunistically call all opponents ‘judicial activists’!

The new composition of the Court ignored 100 years of precedent and gave us a highly partisan 5-4 decision, overturning their previous judgments and historical concern.

That’s the very definition of judicial activism.