Citizens 1, Corporations 0

In states across the country Tuesday, primary elections named candidates for Congress, governorships and other important offices. But the most interesting, and perhaps significant, election did not involve an individual. Rather, it was about an idea.

In Northern California's Humboldt County, voters decided by a 55-45 margin that corporations do not have the same rights -- based on the supposed "personhood" of the combines -- as citizens when it comes to participating in local political campaigns.

Until Tuesday in Humboldt County, corporations were able to claim citizenship rights, as they do elsewhere in the United States. In the context of electoral politics, corporations that were not headquartered in the county took advantage of the same rules that allowed individuals who are not residents to make campaign contributions in order to influence local campaigns.

But, with the passage of Measure T, an initiative referendum that was placed on the ballot by Humboldt County residents, voters have signaled that they want out-of-town corporations barred from meddling in local elections.

Measure T was backed by the county's Green and Democratic parties, as well as labor unions and many elected officials in a region where politics are so progressive that the Greens -- whose 2004 presidential candidate, David Cobb, is a resident of the county and a active promotor of the challenges to corporate power mounted by Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County and the national Liberty Tree Foundation -- are a major force in local politics.

The "Yes on T" campaign was rooted in regard for the American experiment, from its slogan "Vote Yes for Local Control of Our Democracy," to the references to Tuesday's election as a modern-day "Boston Tea Party," to the quote from Thomas Jefferson that was highlighted in election materials: "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Just as Jefferson and his contemporaries were angered by dominance of the affairs of the American colonies by King George III and the British business combines that exploited the natural and human resources of what would become the United States -- and wary of the machinations of those who would establish an American economic royalism -- so Humboldt County residents were angered by the attempts of outside corporate interests to dominate local politics.

Wal-Mart spent $250,000 on a 1999 attempt to change the city of Eureka's zoning laws in order to clear the way for one of the retail giant's big-box stores. Five years later, MAXXAM Inc., a forest products company, got upset with the efforts of local District Attorney Paul Gallegos to enforce regulations on its operations in the county and spent $300,000 on a faked-up campaign to recall him from office. The same year saw outside corporations that were interested in exploiting the county's abundant natural resources meddling in its local election campaigns.

That was the last straw for a lot of Humboldt County residents. They organized to put Measure T on the ballot, declaring, "Our Founding Fathers never intended corporations to have this kind of power."

"Every person has the right to sign petition recalls and to contribute money to political campaigns. Measure T will not affect these individual rights," explained Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, a resident of Eureka who was one of the leaders of the Yes on T campaign. "But individuals hold these political rights by virtue of their status as humans in a democracy and, simply put, a corporation is not a person."

Despite the logic of that assessment, the electoral battle in Humboldt County was a heated one, and Measure T's passage will not end it. Now, the corporate campaign will move to the courts. So this is only a start. But what a monumental start it is!

Sopoci-Belknap was absolutely right when she portrayed Tuesday's vote as nothing less than the beginning of "the process of reclaiming our county" from the "tyranny" of concentrated economic and political power.

Surely Tom Paine would have agreed. It was Paine who suggested to the revolutionaries of 1776, as they dared challenge the most powerful empire on the planet, that: "We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation similar to the present hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of the new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the events of a few months."

It is time to renew the American experiment, to rebuild its battered institutions on the solid foundation of empowered citizens and regulated corporations. Let us hope that the spirit of '76 prevailed Tuesday in Humboldt County will spread until that day when American democracy is guided by the will of the people rather than the campaign contribution checks of the corporations that are the rampaging "empires" of our age.

Comments (26)

1. For more information on Measure T and Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County: http://www.DUHC.org

   For more information on Liberty Tree's Local Democracy Program: http://www.LibertyTreeFDR.org

   Check them out!

   Posted by Ben Manski at 06/07/2006 @ 03:21am

2. Logically, if a corporation or business has no political rights being nonhuman or not a person they have no social or charitable responsibility other than as mandated by law either!

   They don't do this out of the goodness of their hearts but for tax purposes and PR.

   Posted by brunowe at 06/07/2006 @ 06:19am

3. Firesign Theatre's "Temporarily Humboldt County" immediately came to mind....hehe.

   Also the fact that, as Charles Foster Kane might say, "Yes, it's true in 2005, the corporations lost one county, I expect them to lose another county THIS year...you know at the rate of a county a year...they'll be out of personhood in...12,000 years!"

   Posted by Mask at 06/07/2006 @ 06:59am

4. Logically, if a corporation or business has no political rights being nonhuman or not a person they have no social or charitable responsibility other than as mandated by law either!

   Posted by RIO BRAVO 06/07/2006 @ 04:42am

   Excellent argument! You guys are always arguing that corportations have no other reponsibility then to their shareholders.

   that alone would make them a virtual slave to the shareholder. Since slavery is illegal in the US, by definition corporations must not be people.

   Thanks for helping us make the argument rio

   Posted by Will C. at 06/07/2006 @ 09:34am

5. Corporations intially had social responsibilities to the communities that so graciously granted them a charter. That idea has flown completely by the wayside.

   Incidentally, the title of the post should be:

   Citizens: 1, Corporations: 1,000,000 (or so)

   Posted by bjkron at 06/07/2006 @ 10:03am

6. Nichols nails it!

   In a very profounf way what is happening in Humboldt is also happening all across our nation every day. That is, ordinary citizens are struggling to make the world a better place but finding that the legal system usually protects the entity that is so often causing great harm-- the transnational corporation.

   But what makes the Humboldt experience so inspiring is that these folks are experimenting with a model that solves a concrete problem (in this case the corrosive effect of corporate money in elections) while simultaneously delegitimizng the legal doctrines that enshrine and protect corporate power.

   And it is just icing on the cake to see Democrats and Greens working together!!!!!

   Onward to making the world anew.

   Posted by Common Sense at 06/07/2006 @ 10:20am

7. from Thomas Jefferson that was highlighted in election materials: "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

   Just as Jefferson and his contemporaries were angered by dominance of the affairs of the American colonies by King George III and the British business combines that exploited the natural and human resources of what would become the United States,

   No, that quote was in response to american "aristocracy" not the british.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 10:32am

8. this was part of the struggle of Jefferson with the bank.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 10:35am

9. Liberty:

   Given that you have stated numerous times that you are a constituional originalist, I was wondering if you would point out the constitutional support or Framers' intent for recognizing corporate personhood on par with individual citizens.

   Posted by Hman23 at 06/07/2006 @ 10:51am

10. So let me get this straight LL, RIO, and MASK....You are FOR the personhood of corporations? Why?

    Honestly. Honest question. I really am asking sincerely, and would be interested in a reasoned answer.

    And RIO, are you contending that currently, corporations' charitable efforts are completely contingent on their being granted this personhood, that this grant of personhood is the sole reason a corporation should or would engage in charitable efforts? Again, serious question.

    I'd also like to point out that no one has claimed that a corporation has NO political rights, despite RIO's assertion. The people of Humbolt county voted on a measure that denies a corporation THE SAME rights as a person, because a corporation is most certainly NOT a person. This does not mean corporations have NO political rights, just different rights, and justly so. Remember, Measure T does not preclude ALL corporations from their local politics, just outsider corporations and organizations (including PACS, non-profits and labor unions). Sorry to rain on your parade against anti-corporatism.

    And MASK, I don't think quoting a fictional character in a movie arguably about the ills of seeking excess money, power, and arrogance as a surrogate for real human emotion and connection is the best way to make your point, especially when the character is the picture of excess money, power, arrogance, and as you know since you've seen the movie, deep regret.

    I find it strange that you three take such issue with regular people wanting to prevent their very local, very personal politics and governance from being taken advantage of.

    Posted by tttruck at 06/07/2006 @ 10:58am

11. Posted by TTTRUCK 06/07/2006 @ 10:58am | ignore this person

    Well, first off, in the instance I was paraphrasing of Kane...he was in his "idealistic youth" phase, in which he cared nothing for profits/losses and was trying to turn the paper into a "reformist" media....so I think that applies.

    Second, my mockery of Humboldt County is justified, because it's a northern California area, reknown for being the "Marijuana Capital of the West Coast", and hardly a bellweather for what the rest of the country is going to do on them evil corporations.

    Third, the main problem you'll find in rejecting the "personhood" of corporations is....they're not ALL "evil, polluting, corrupt capitalist swine"...and if you start taking it away from Exxon and Wal-mart, you might find that OTHER corporations you like get screwed as well....such as non-profit corporations like Amnesty International or the Nature Conservancy....or public corporations like the numerous state Transit Authorities.

    "Oh, we can make exceptions for those!"...fine. But then you get a huge Supreme Court fight on your hands and it's not likely that a Roberts/Alito/Scalia court will over-rule that.....that's IF they over-rule "Saloman v. Saloman & Co" in the first place and judge corporations are NOT "persons".

    Posted by Mask at 06/07/2006 @ 11:47am

12. This may be the best solution to the whole "campaign finance" mess we have...large "outside" groups influencing politics at a smaller level...however, there is a problems with it. Supposing (a BIG supposition) that disallowing corporations from funding campaigns at the local level, corporations would work very hard to find another way of doing what they want to do, which in SOME cases is not good for the locals. What might be a better solution is to change corporate law to not only define what corporate rights are, but also what corporate responsibilities are, just as they are defined for individuals. I'm saying this because it is very difficult to keep money out of politics...where there's a will...

    any thoughts?

    Posted by wereverywhere at 06/07/2006 @ 12:20pm

13. but also what corporate responsibilities are, just as they are defined for individuals.

    Posted by WEREVERYWHERE 06/07/2006 @ 12:20am | ignore this person

    What "responsibilites defined for the individual" would translate into a "responsibility of the corporation"?

    Posted by Mask at 06/07/2006 @ 12:51pm

14. Odd off-topic thought just struck me...

    On the Right, they want "personhood" granted to things like corporations AND fetuses/embryoes...an expansive, "liberal" view of the term "person".

    While on the Left, they want "personhood" denied to the above....a restrictive, "conservative" view on the term "person"?

    (just throwing that out)

    Posted by Mask at 06/07/2006 @ 12:54pm

15. Mask, look up the definition of person. the person I'm interested in with the abortion debate is the woman. she is definitely a person, and her rights are paramount here. you cannot force a woman to have a baby.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 1:18pm

16. Liberty -

    You may claim it has been a "fact of American life," but without giving any textual support I cannot see how you are being consistent with your constitutional analysis of other issues. Abortion has been a fact of American life from the begininng of our nation yet you bristle at the notion of reading the constitution to allow women reproductive privacy rights in choosing to have one legally.

    As far as your legal challenge to Measure T, explain to me what federal laws are violated (or even apply) to a measure affecting LOCAL elections. I issue the same challenge to your claim that the Commerce Clause somehow applies. How is it a restraint on interstate commerce? As for #3, I assume you are raising an equal protection argument. If so, corporations are hardly a suspect class. Thus, I do not see how Measure T fails under a rational basis test.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/07/2006 @ 1:32pm

17. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/07/2006 @ 1:18pm | ignore this person

    JOHANN, both the status of corporations AND fetuses as "persons" is a political argument....was my point.

    And in point of fact, we DO grant pre-natal "personhood" to a fetus at viability even in liberal restrictions to abortion beyond the 2nd trimester. Animal rights advocates want to grant "personhood" to animals.

    What I was finding ironic was that traditionally "liberal" means "open, more inclusive, expansive" on such definitions...yet this is the Right's view on who gets "personhood" applied to them. While the "conservative" view is traditionally "enclosed, restricted, etc"...and this is the Left's view on who gets called a "person" (animal rights advocates aside).

    Posted by Mask at 06/07/2006 @ 1:47pm

18. DO grant pre-natal "personhood"

    er, not exactly. in legal terms we do not

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2006 @ 2:31pm

19. as per usual, the lvliberty and others erroneously characterize the confrontation. it isn't that we citizens of northern california dislike ALL corporations, or even the biggest ones who actually can do a lot of good for the locals. we just dislike the bad ones: and nichols mentions two who have been a total, 100% disaster for this state: maxxam and wal-mart.

    there is also the matter of taste: wal-mart, simply put, is BAD TASTE. their stores are big, ugly and totally out of place in our rainforests. and maxxam is primarily responsible for cutting down our rainforests. we happen to like trees up here. they absorb co2, they give off o2. they protect us from global warming (and the collapse of civilization). they are life. they give life.

    so, please lvliberty, stay out of our business.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2006 @ 2:52pm

20. and i'd also like to add: is there anything wrong with being "poor", if it means doing what's right?

    are you trying to insinuate that we should embrace wal-mart because they give us jobs?

    Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2006 @ 2:55pm

21. Actually, corporatations were never accorded equal status under the law with humans.

    The idea that they were, results from a mistaken interpretation of a Supreme Court reporter's headnotes in an 1886 railroad tax case (SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., 118 U.S. 394 (1886)as being part of the legal ruling.

    Headnotes have no legal standing; they serve as commentary on a decision.

    Posted by ldavis02 at 06/07/2006 @ 3:13pm

22. Chief Justice Marshall in Dartmouth College v. Woodward , 4 Wheat. 518, 636 (1819)

    "A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created."

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/07/2006 @ 3:43pm

23. "100% disaster for this state: maxxam and wal-mart."

    The problem is the fact that the poor, whom you claim to represent and protect, are the biggest Walmart shoppers and benifet the most from the cheap prices, as consumers.

    Posted by john maasch at 06/07/2006 @ 3:43pm

24. maasch--

    you are hilarious.

    first, where did i "claim" to represent the poor? nice try there.

    second, can you actually prove that the "poor" are the biggest wal-mart shoppers? i dare you.

    third, do wal-mart shoppers actually benefit from cheap prices? i mean, let's face it, cheap prices = cheap products. and cheap products are not built to last. therefore, shoppers will only have to buy the same products over and over again.

    and who really benefits from cheap prices anyways? the laborers in china? the chinese elite? the wal-mart ownership classes? yes! what about the environment? the working classes? no!

    Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2006 @ 4:10pm

25. sorry, not the chinese laborers. they will not benefit.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/07/2006 @ 4:11pm

26. "Corporate personhood" is illegitimate. It is a direct violation of the 13th amendment.

    Posted by CLAW at 06/07/2006 @ 4:58pm