In my white paper I want to address the legal scope of corporate person hood and whether are not it is too broad or powerful. In the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission case the concept of corporate person hood gave corporations even more power. The problem here lies in the potential consequences that result in attempting to treat a corporation as a “legal entity”. Next what does it mean to keep a “legal entity” accountable?
People are all over the spectrum in regard to these questions; however I think corporate personhood is dangerous because in the eyes of the law corporations are a person with rights and all. While I see there may be some benefits and usefulness of the concept of corporations as a “legal entity”, overall I think this concept is harmful. In the Citizens United case corporations where given the green light to contribute an unlimited amount in expenditures in elections because money was considered a form of speech. Since corporations are a “legal entity” and the freedom of speech a right that every individual enjoys this right should not be withheld from a corporation.
This decision adds to prevalent thought that corporations should be treated as a “legal entity”. I do not want to be rash and blame all of the unethical behavior on corporate personhood. But, I do think we need to be critical of corporations and ask how did they get so much power and are they fulfilling their purpose? I believe concept of corporate personhood is the bedrock of that question.
I think the decision of Citizens United helps my topic in an indirect way because it shows the power and effect of conceiving of corporations as “legal entities”. The decision of this case shows that corporations are receiving power incredibly fast and it must be addressed soon.
The information from this case is reliable however; one cannot tell completely how this decision will play out because often time politics are complex and complicated.