Introduction
This article analyzes the evolution of corporate personhood within US law. It argues that the recognition of corporations as constitutional entities was not a sudden act, but rather a process of gradual normalization and selectivity.
The reader will discover how big capital exploited semantic loopholes in the 14th Amendment. They will also learn the distinction between property protection and personal liberties, as well as the mechanisms through which companies converted financial resources into lasting legal precedents.
The Semantic Gap Between Citizen and Person
Adam Winkler points out that while the 14th Amendment was created to protect freed slaves, it introduced a crucial distinction between citizen and person. This semantic gap became a foothold for corporate lawyers.
They leveraged the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, both of which protect every "person." Consequently, corporations could argue that although they were not citizens, they were still entitled to constitutional protection against state arbitrariness. An example of this was the strategy of Roscoe Conkling, who manipulated the interpretation of legislative history to extend these protections to railroad assets.
The 14th Amendment as a Tool for Corporate Property Protection
According to Adam Winkler, corporations began invoking the 14th Amendment because traditional contract protections were insufficient. New norms allowed them to transform ordinary tax disputes into fundamental constitutional conflicts.
Taxes ceased to be merely levies and became potential deprivations of property without due process. This enabled federal courts to oversee the democratic fiscal policies of individual states. However, recognizing a corporation as a person did not grant immediate immunity from regulation; rather, it served as a "right of entry" into legal disputes, not an absolute shield against the law.
Functional Selectivity Over Full Legal Personhood
Winkler debunks the myth that the Santa Clara County case made companies human with a single ruling. The Court did not grant them full civil rights, but instead applied functional selectivity. Corporations were granted property rights, while being denied liberty rights.
For this reason, companies can protect documents from search and seizure (Fourth Amendment), but they cannot remain silent under the privilege against self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment). The right to silence requires a human psyche and conscience, which an artificial entity does not possess. In cases such as Berea College, the Court confirmed that personal liberty applies exclusively to natural persons.
Summary
Recognizing corporations as "persons" for the purpose of protecting property created a dangerous precedent. Once the barrier between biology and artificial entities was breached, the boundaries of rights ceased to be derived from logic and instead became the result of power struggles.
Big capital, acting as repeat players, systematically converted economic capital into legal capital. As a result, the Constitution—originally intended to protect the weak from power—became an instrument for protecting the most powerful organizations from society.
Frequently Asked Questions
How could the provisions of the 14th Amendment, created for the protection of freed slaves, be utilized by corporations?
Corporations exploited the linguistic distinction introduced in the 14th Amendment between 'citizen' and 'person.' The general nature of the phrase 'any person' became a semantic foothold that allowed economic entities to seek constitutional protection.
Why did corporations start invoking the 14th Amendment instead of relying on traditional contract clauses?
Corporations began invoking the 14th Amendment because traditional contract protections did not shield them from taxes, tariffs, or safety regulations. Through Due Process and Equal Protection, they were able to transform economic disputes into constitutional ones, arguing that state actions constituted a form of expropriation or unequal treatment of a legal entity.
Is it true that a single entry in the Santa Clara County case made corporations people and granted them full civil rights?
No, that is a popular legend; the Court did not declare that a corporation is a person nor did it grant it full civil rights, such as the right to vote. The case concerned only the application of the term 'person' within specific clauses of the 14th Amendment, and the actual opinion of the Court did not resolve the constitutional issue.
Did recognizing corporations as 'persons' under the 14th Amendment mean they immediately became immune to state regulations?
Recognizing corporations as 'persons' within the meaning of the 14th Amendment did not imply automatic immunity from state regulations. It merely established the right to bring a claim before a court, while states retained the competence to regulate corporate activity in the interest of public safety.
How were corporations able to influence the interpretation of the constitution without having to directly control judges?
Corporations leverage their advantage in procedural resources and the ability to conduct numerous test cases, allowing them to systematically produce favorable precedents. As so-called 'repeat players,' they treat individual disputes as investments in long-term changes to legal doctrine through the process of normalizing argumentation.
What were the actual effects of recognizing corporations as 'persons' in light of the Constitution, and where is the line between property rights and human rights?
Recognizing corporations as persons created a precedent where constitutional rights ceased to belong exclusively to biological individuals, which initially served to protect ownership and assets. This led to a situation where the Constitution became a tool for protecting powerful organizations from social regulations, limiting the possibility of democratically controlling economic power. The line between property and human rights was drawn by denying corporations rights strictly linked to personal human liberty, such as the right to silence based on the privilege against self-incrimination.
Why were corporations granted property protection, but not all the constitutional rights afforded to human beings?
Corporations were granted property protection because ownership is a normative relationship that does not require the owner to possess a psyche. However, they were denied personal liberty rights, as these refer to forms of existence and capacities (such as memory, will, or conscience) that an artificial person does not experience.
Why can corporations protect their documents from search, but cannot refuse to testify based on the privilege against self-incrimination?
Corporations can protect documents from unreasonable search because this secures the sphere of their property and limits the arbitrariness of investigative bodies. However, they cannot benefit from the privilege against self-incrimination, as it is a personal right of an individual, and granting it to organizations could create institutional immunity and paralyze state oversight of their activities.
Can a corporation enjoy all the rights contained in the 14th Amendment in the same way as a human being?
No, a corporation cannot enjoy all the rights of the 14th Amendment in the same way as a human being. While it is entitled to property protection, liberty—understood as personal autonomy—is reserved exclusively for natural persons.
How did US courts distinguish corporate rights from human rights, and what were the consequences of this in cases such as Berea College?
US courts distinguished corporate rights from human rights by recognizing that artificial persons possess neither personal autonomy of liberty nor all the immunities afforded to natural persons. In cases such as Berea College, the consequence was treating the college as a 'creature of the state,' which allowed for the upholding of segregationist laws by denying the corporation freedom of conscience and association.
Why were corporations not granted all the rights afforded to humans, and on what basis did the Court decide which ones to grant them?
Corporations were not granted all the rights afforded to humans because they are treated as economic instruments rather than full members of the political and moral community. The Court applies a principle of selectivity, granting only those rights whose function is compatible with the organizational nature of the entity, while excluding those requiring personal consciousness.
Did the constitutional protection of corporate property automatically grant it the right to influence political elections in the US?
No, the constitutional protection of corporate property did not automatically mean the right to transform it into autonomous electoral power. During the Progressive Era, corporate political spending was viewed as a threat to the democratic community and the interests of the shareholders themselves.
