Occupy San Luis Obispo County Information

"Our lives begin to end the day
        we become silent about things that matter."
                                                Martin Luther King Jr.

Some Judicial History

of corporate "personhood"

  • −1868: Paul v. Virginia 75 U.S. 168 Lawyers arguing for corporations rights claimed that under the privileges and immunities clause, corporations are citizens. Supreme Court ruled that corporations are not citizens under Article IV, Section 2. “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”
  •  
  • −1868: Paul v. Virginia 75 U.S. 168 Lawyers arguing for corporations rights claimed that under the privileges and immunities clause, corporations are citizens. Supreme Court ruled that corporations are not citizens under Article IV, Section 2. “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”
  •  
  • −1876: Munn v. Illinois 94 U.S. 113The US Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment cannot be used to protect corporations from state law. They did not rule on personhood.
  •  
  • −1882: San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad 116 U.S. 138Lawyers argued that corporations were persons and that the committee drafting the 14th Amendment had intended the word person to mean corporations as well as natural persons.The court did not rule on corporate personhood, but this is the case in which they heard the argument.
  •  
  • −1886: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad 118 U.S. 394. Though the court did not make a ruling on whether the 14th Amendment covered corporations, the decision in this case was subsequently cited as precedent to hold that a private corporation was a "natural person."
  •  
  • −1889: Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Beckwith 129 U.S. 26Supreme Court rules a corporation is a “person” for both due process and equal protection.
  •  
  • −1891: Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Ellis - 165 U.S. 150Supreme Court rules a corporation is a “person” for both due process and equal protection.
  •  
  • −1905: Lochner v. New York 198 U.S. 45“Lochner” became shorthand for using the Constitution to invalidate government regulation of the corporation. It embodies the doctrine of “substantive due process.” From 1905 until the mid 1930s the Court invalidated approximately 200 economic regulations, usually under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
  •  
  • −1906: Hale v. Henkel 201 U.S. 43 Corporations are persons 4th Amendment “search and seizure,” protection, also amendment 5 and amendment 14. Justice Harlan disagreed on this point: “...the power of the government, by its representatives, to look into the books, records and papers of a corporation of its own creation, to ascertain whether that corporation has obeyed or is defying the law, will be greatly curtailed, if not destroyed.”
  •  
  • −1908: Armour Packing Co. v. U.S. 209 U.S. 56 Corporations get 6th Amendment right to jury trial in a criminal case. A corporate defendant was considered an “accused” for 6th Amendment purposes.
  •  
  • −1922: Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon 260 U.S. 393 Corporations get 5th Amendment “takings clause”: “...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” A regulation is deemed a takings.
  •  
  • −1933: Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee The people of Florida passed a law that levied higher taxes on chain stores. The Supreme Court overturned the law cit-ing the due process and equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the Interstate Commerce clause.
  •  
  • −1936: Grosjean v. American Press Co. A newspaper corporation has a 1st Amendment liberty right to freedom of speech that would be applied to the states through the 14th Amendment. The Court ruled that the corporation was free to sell advertising in newspapers without being taxed. This is the first 1st Amendment protection for corporations.
  •  
  • −1939: Hague v. C.I.O. The Court denies an incorporated labor union 1st Amendment rights. Only the individual plaintiffs, not the labor union or the ACLU, could invoke 1st Amendment protections. “[A corporation] cannot be said to be deprived of freedom of speech and of assembly, for the liberty guaranteed by the due process clause is the liberty of natural, not artificial persons.”
  •  
  • −1949: Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander Justice Douglas dissents. Regarding the ruling that corporations are given rights as persons under the 14th Amendment, he said, “There was no history, logic or reason given to support that view nor was the result so obvious that exposition was unnecessary.”
  •  
  • −1967: See v. City of Seattle Supreme Court grants corporations 4th Amendment protection from random inspection by fire department. The Court framed the question in terms of “business enterprises,” corporate or otherwise. An administrative warrant is necessary to enter and inspect commercial premises.
  •  
  • −1967: See v. City of Seattle Corporations get 7th Amendment right to jury trial in a civil case. The Court implies that the corporation has this right because a shareholder in a derivative suit would have that right.
  •  
  • −1970: Ross v. Bernhard Corporations get 7th Amendment right to jury trial in a civil case. The Court implies that the corporation has this right because a shareholder in a derivative suit would have that right.
  •  
  • −1976: Buckley v. Valeo The Supreme Court rules that political money is equivalent to speech. This ruling expanded the First Amendment’s protections to include financial contributions to candidates or parties.
  •  
  • −1976: U.S. v. Martin Linen Supply A corporation successfully uses the 5th Amendment to protect itself against double jeopardy to avoid retrial in an anti-trust case.
  •  
  • −1976: Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council The Supreme Court protects commercial speech. Advertising is now free speech.
  •  
  • −1978: First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti 435 U.S. 765,98 S. Ct. 1407,55 L. Ed. 2d 707,1978 U.S.The First Amendment is used to overturn state restrictions on corporate spending on political referenda. The Court reverses its longstanding policy of denying such rights to non-media business corporations. This precedent is used, with Buckley v. Valeo, to thwart attempts to remove corporate money from politics.
  •  
  • −1978: Marshall v. Barlow This case gave corporations the 4th Amendment right to require OSHA to produce a warrant to check for safety violations.
  •  
  • −1986: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission Supreme Court decided that PG&E was not required to allow a consumer advocacy group to use the extra space in their billing envelope, upholding the corporation’s right not to speak and protecting the corporation’s “freedom of mind.”
  •  
  • −1990: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce Supreme Court upholds limitations on corporate spending in candidate elections. First Amendment rights can be infringed if the state has a compelling interest.
  •  
  • −1996: International Dairy Foods Association v. Amestoy Supreme Court overturns a Vermont law requiring the labeling of all products containing bovine growth hormone. The right not to speak inheres in political and commercial speech alike and extends to statements of fact as well as statements of opinion.
  •  

Citizens United v FEC

Decision Case Citations

Other Corporate power related

Case Decisionss

Some Legislative and Judicial History

of campaign financing

  • −1867:
  •  
  • −1870: Enforcement Act of 1870 was the first comprehensive federal statute dealing with elections which was was adopted in as a means of enforcing the Fifteenth Amendments guarantee against racial discrimination in granting suffrage rights. Under the Enforcement Act of 1870, and subsequent laws, false registration, bribery, voting without legal right, making false returns of votes cast, interference in any manner with officers of election, and the neglect by any such officer of any duty required of him by state or federal law were made federal offenses.
  •  
  • −1907: Tillman Act (34 Stat. 864) Was the first legislation in the United States prohibiting monetary contribution to national political campaigns by corporations. Nationally the first big legislation came under Teddy Roosevelt who supported it. "Every corporation which shall make any contribution in violation of the foregoing provisions shall be subject to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and every officer or director of any corporation who shall consent to any contribution by the corporation in violation of the foregoing provisions shall upon conviction be punished by a fine of not exceeding one thousand and not less than two hundred and fifty dollars, or by imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court." The language of the Act provided for penalties but no actual enforcement method. There was no FEC, no disclosure requirements for candidates. Corporations could circumvent the law by having officers personally contribute directly to campaigns and then reimbursing them with an equal bonus at the end of the year. The law did not apply to primary elections or national elections.
  •  
  • −1910: Federal Corrupt Practices Act (aka the Publicity Act or the FPCA) 2 U.S.C. Section 241 June 25, 1910.

    The Act established campaign spending limits for political parties in House general elections. It was the first federal law to establish public disclosure of financial spending by political parties (but not candidates.) The Act carried few penalties and was rarely enforced.

  •  
  • −1911: Amendments were made to the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1910 which added the Senate and also required financial disclosure by candidates for the first time.
  •  
  • −1921: Newberry v. United States - 256 U.S. 232 the USSC ruled that the congressional authority to regulate elections did not extend to party primaries or nominations, thus striking down the 1911 amendment's spending limits.
  •  
  • −1925: Amendments revised and strengthened the Federal Corrupt Practices Act (aka the Publicity Act.) The amendments extended the FCPA's coverage to multi-state parties and election committees, and required that financial disclosure reports be made quarterly. It also established a requirement that any contribution over $100 be reported. The amendments also raised Senate campaign spending limits to $25,000.
    However the law provided for no regulatory authority to establish the manner of reporting or its disclosure to the public, and set no penalties for failure to comply. The law did not regulate total contributions, which encouraged parties and donors to set up multiple committees and make multiple donations (all under $100) to evade the law's limits. Enforcement was left up to Congress, which rarely acted.
  •  
  • −1934: Burroughs v. U.S. 290 U.S. 534. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the reporting requirements of the FCPA against a constitutional challenge.
  •  
  • −1940: The Hatch Act applied to Federal (and some State) government employees prohibiting certain politically related activity including soliciting or receiving donations.
  •  
  • −1941: United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299. - Upheld the Acts' spending limits in federal elections.. The court limited its ruling, however, by concluding that the congressional power to regulate extended only in cases where state law made primaries and nominations part of the election and/or whenever the primary effectively determined the outcome of the election.
  •  
  • −1943: The Smith-Connally Act (also called the War Labor Disputes Act) The law passed on June 25, 1943, over President Franklin D. Roosevelt's veto. The Act allowed the federal government to seize and operate industries threatened by or under strikes that would interfere with war production, and prohibited unions from making contributions in federal elections.
  •  
  • −1947: The Labor-Management Relations Act (Pub. L. 80-101, 61 Stat. 136, enacted June 23, 1947, informally the Taft-Hartley Act.) became law by overriding U.S. President Harry S. Truman's veto the Act barred unions and corporations from making independent expenditures in support of or opposition to federal candidates.
  •  
  • −1971: The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA, Pub.L. 92-225, 86 Stat. 3, U.S.C. 431 et seq.) Enacted over the veto of President Gerald R. Ford is a United States federal law which increased disclosure of contributions for federal campaigns. FECA also requires campaigns and political committees to report the names, addresses, and occupations of donors of $200 or more.
  •  
  • −1974: Amendment Federal Election Campaign Act It was amended to place legal limits on campaign contributions. The amendment also created the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
  •  
  • −1976: Buckley v. Valeo 424 U.S., 1 . - Upheld the Acts' spending limits in federal elections. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court sustained the individual contribution limits, the disclosure and reporting provisions, and the public financing scheme.
    However, decided that the limitations on campaign expenditures, on independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and on expenditures by a candidate from his personal funds are constitutionally infirm. Finally, held that most of the powers conferred by the Act upon the Federal Election Commission can be exercised only by "Officers of the United States," appointed in conformity with Art. II, sec 2, cl. 2, of the Constitution, and therefore cannot be exercised by the Commission as presently constituted.
  •  
  • −1976: Amendment Federal Election Campaign Act in response to the provisions ruled unconstitutional by Buckley v. Valeo.
    The new amendments, enacted on May 11, 1976, repealed expenditure limits (except for candidates who accepted public funding) and revised the provision governing the appointment of Commissioners. It made other changes, including provisions that limited the scope of PAC fundraising by corporations and labor organizations. Preceding this curtailment of PAC solicitations, the FEC had issued an advisory opinion, confirming that the 1971 law permitted a corporation to use treasury money to establish, operate and solicit contributions to a PAC. The FEC opinion also permitted corporations and their PACs to solicit the corporation's employees as well as its stockholders. . The 1976 amendments, however, put significant restrictions on PAC solicitations, specifying who could be solicited and how solicitations would be conducted. In addition, a single contribution limit was adopted for all PACs established by the same union or corporation.
  •  
  • −1979: Amendment Federal Election Campaign Act Allowed parties to spend unlimited amounts of hard money on activities like increasing voter turnout and registration. In 1979, the Commission ruled that political parties could spend unregulated or "soft" money for non-federal administrative and party building activities. Later, this money was used for candidate related issue ads, which led to a substantial increase in soft money contributions and expenditures in elections. The Amendments also increased the public funding grants for Presidential nominating conventions.
  •  
  • −1978: First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765
  • The USSC ruled that corporations had a First Amendment right to make contributions in order to attempt to influence political processes. A corporation, as an entity, is to be afforded the same freedom of expression of its political views as is an individual.
  •  
  • −1986: FEC v Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc
  • The Supreme Court of the United States decided, by a 5 to 4 vote, that the law's prohibition on corporate expenditures is unconstitutional as applied to independent expenditures made by a narrowly defined type of nonprofit corporation.
  •  
  • −1990: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652
  • The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections, did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court upheld the restriction on corporate speech based on the notion that "[c]orporate wealth can unfairly influence elections," and the Michigan law still allowed the corporation to make contributions from a segregated fund. The decision was overruled by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010)
  •  
  • −1999: UNITED STATES v. SUN-DIAMOND GROWERS OF CALIFORNIA 526 U.S. 398
  • The justices ruled that it is not a crime to provide public officials with gifts or free meals unless they are aimed at rewarding a specific action by the official.
  •  
  • −2000: Nixon v. Shrink PAC, 528 U.S. 377
  • The Supreme Court of the United States held that their earlier decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976) upholding federal limits on campaign contributions also applied to state limits on campaign contributions to state offices.
  •  
  • − −2002: Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act [McCain-Feingold]
    The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) includes several provisions designed to end the use of nonfederal, or "soft money" (money raised outside the limits and prohibitions of federal campaign finance law) for activity affecting federal elections, as well as other provisions.
  •  
  • −2003: McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93
  • A case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA.) It was partially overruled by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010}
  •  
  • −2007: Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449
  • The Supreme Court of the United States held that issue ads may not be banned from the months preceding a primary or general election.
  •  
  • −2008: Davis v. Federal Election Commission, 554 U.S. 724
  • The Supreme Court of the United States held that Sections 319(a) and (b) of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (popularly known as the McCain-Feingold Act) unconstitutionally infringed on a candidate's First Amendment rights..
  • Section 319(b) of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 contained the so-called "Millionaire's Amendment," which required a candidate for federal office in the United States to file a "declaration of intent" regarding how much of the candidate's personal funds he or she intended to spend in the upcoming election.
  • Section 319(a) provided that the contribution caps for the non-self-financing opposition candidate were now tripled, and the non-self-financing candidate could receive coordinated contributions and expenditures from his or her national political party without any limitation.
  •  
  • −2010: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205
  • Overruled two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions.
  • For an analysis see Citizens United and the Illusion of Coherence by Richard L. Hasen
  •  
  • −2011: McComish v. Bennett
  • The Supreme Court of the United States struck down Arizona's a public funding law provision put in place to help offset wealthy candidates advantages in elections.