Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Occupy Everywhere – But Not at the Mall
“The state and city pretty much shut us down at the historic ‘public square’ at the Capitol,” said Roger Ehrlich, an Occupy Raleigh activist, “so it seemed reasonable to assemble at the modern, corporatized version – the mall.” Ehrlich and I were among six people arrested on Black Friday during an Occupy Raleigh protest at the Crabtree Valley Mall.
The Occupy tent occupations provided a public forum for democratic protest and created a space for envisioning new communities. Then, police began to crack-down on encampments, disinformation campaigns grew and public support waned. As a result, many Occupy movements have expanded tactics from long-term public occupations to short-term direct actions on private property, such as ports, banks, homes, and malls. What are the implications of this shift to the power hubs of the 1%?
First, this transition from the public to the private directly exposes the collusion between government and corporations.
As a resident of Oakland and a doctoral candidate at the University of California-Berkeley, I had survived the police brutality in the public spaces of Occupy Oakland and Occupy Cal. Yet I ended up being arrested on private property by a planned coordination between mall cops and the city police.
Actions on private property expose this complicity of the government with corporate interests, which is the crux of the Occupy movement. It is this trend of the government ceding more and more rights, control and funding to the corporate 1% at the expense of the 99% that has the movement up in arms.
One target is the U.S. Supreme court decision of Citizens United, which ruled that corporations have the same rights as individuals. Yet individuals do not have the same rights as corporations. In response to money buying power, the Occupy amendment seeks to reverse this ruling. Recently, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont introduced a constitutional amendment that would reverse this ruling, as well as prohibit campaign contributions by corporations.
But the Occupy movement, for its part, has also pushed and blurred the physical boundaries between the public and private, but in a different direction.
Another result, then, of the Occupy move from public to private spaces is that it challenges our notion of the public sphere, taking the fight directly to the 1%. Most occupations have been in public spaces, such as city or university property. Case law on the rights of assembly and free speech, therefore, can support these public protests. What of challenging our rights to free speech in private spaces?
I was videotaping the Occupy Raleigh protest at the Crabtree Valley Mall, so I asked a police officer why I was being arrested. He replied, “Ma’am, this is private property.”
The massive and sprawling food court where I was arrested is, in many ways, the contemporary town square in that it hosts many events that are open to the public. Most people no longer shop at local merchants in a quaint village but, instead, gather at big box stores or shopping malls. From cultural performances to mall walking, these meccas of corporate consumerism are used for public events. Of the six of us arrested at the mall, including Ehrlich, two were fathers of children who would be performing holiday music on the same stage where these protesters had chanted, “Human need, not corporate greed.”
But it is not just citizens who are using the mall for public uses. In 2008, the North Carolina legislature approved private spaces as voting sites. So that same year in Wake County, home of Crabtree Valley Mall, the Board of Elections used two shopping malls as voting sites because they recognized that increased voter turnout could derive from using these heavily used private spaces. Controversy ensued there, as well, as citizens were not given the same rights to leaflet and talk to citizens as they are in public voting sites spaces.
As a sociologist who studies social movements and social media, I am captivated by theories of what constitutes the “public sphere” for political discussions. Jürgen Habermas, a German scholar, described the public sphere as not so much a physical place but distinct historical periods when debate can flourish outside of those in power. So rather than the mall as simply a space for protest or the Internet as a tool for political debate, perhaps this moment has created an opportunity for a national conversation that includes the 99%, rather than the corporate voices that tend to dominate because of the power of money.
Yet the physical space of a public sphere does, indeed, matter. Other philosophers, such as Brecht, argued that counter public spheres can challenge the traditional public spheres controlled by dominant voices in the media, government, and corporations. Political movements, such as Occupy, do just that, particularly when private spaces, usually off-limits to the public, can become public megaphones. In other words, the material spaces that represent what is wrong with the current capitalist system – whether a shopping mall or a foreclosed home – also become a vehicle for protest and the public sphere itself.
Finally, the transformation of the Occupy movement onto private property has only escalated the Occupy movement, not diminished it. The West Coast Port shutdown on December 12 most symbolizes this. While there had been countless spontaneous acts of occupy solidarity before this action, this was the first city-to-city coordinated protest on private property since the inception of the Occupy movement. Being forced off public property has inspired the Occupy movement to be innovative and creative in its tactics, rather than extinguish it.
It has also expanded its base. At a home foreclosure action earlier this month in West Oakland, a largely low-income African-American community, a man across the street yelled to the crowd, “Where have you been the last 15 years?” While this statement may well be a legitimate critique of the whiteness of the movement, it can also be perceived as expansion, as the Occupy Oakland movement has spent countless hours canvassing Latino and African-American neighborhoods, working with local residents to occupy their foreclosed homes.
“Occupy Everywhere” has been one of the battle cries of the Occupy movement. The movement is not stopping at the gold-clad gates of the 1%. In the process, public actions challenge the sanctity of American private property.
As an arresting officer told one of my co-defendants, “This is private property. You have no rights.” As a result, the state and the corporation assume that simply making public comments on private property is an act of violence. All six of us were charged with the following:
"...intentionally cause a public disturbance at CRABTREE VALLEY MALL, by making utterances, intended and plainly likely to provoke immediate violent retaliation and thereby cause a breach of the peace. The acts of the defendant were directed toward CROWD IN FOOD COURT and consisted of REMARKS ABOUT THE OCCUPY RALEIGH PROTEST."
- Posted in
35 Comments so far
Show AllThe modern shopping mall is a major obstacle in mounting effective public protests. Many a suburban dweller spends virtually no time in an accessible public space. He sits in a private car along expressways where pedestrians are not allowed, and along multii-lane streets where stopping to chat to by-standers is either impractical or a traffic law violation. The suburbanite (oops, sounds like a disease) then drives to an office complex or a shopping mall. Each is private property and each is surrounded by a parking lot that is private property. It is thus virtually impossible for someone who objects to the social order to have a face to face encounter with members of he public. This means that the contrary point of view is kept out of sight and out of mind of the typical suburban dweller. It marks a real and serious challenge to those who are working for a change in our social order.
Good point, slowwalkhome. And a scary, unpleasant reminder too - that there is very little public space available anymore in many places.
The suburban dweller has CHOSEN to live that way, remember.
Confronting the lack of public space in the 'burbs is attacking the choices of suburban dwellers, is attacking the suburban dwellers themselves.
One of quite a few reasons why "actions" such as the one in the article are stupid. ;
MUCH better to find whatever remaining public space there is in the outlying city the 'burb has glommed onto or just stay in the main city and hold a rally or something there.
That way the folks ready to leave the Nazi suburban nest will select themselves, and those not ready can be avoided, not confronted (in their stronghold).
Not really. He/she has chosen to remove themselves from the dirt and crime of the urban setting to a healthier environment with better schools. They didn't vote on or fund huge malls and run Main Street out of business. That decision was undemocratically made in the Board Room and aided by the politicians they bought.
"...intentionally cause a public disturbance at CRABTREE VALLEY MALL, by making utterances, intended and plainly likely to provoke immediate violent retaliation...."
Well, this is true in a Kafkaesque fashion. It provoked the po-lice into "immediate violent retaliation" by physically arresting the 'free speechers'.
"But it is not just citizens who are using the mall for public uses. In 2008, the North Carolina legislature approved private spaces as voting sites. So that same year in Wake County, home of Crabtree Valley Mall, the Board of Elections used two shopping malls as voting sites because they recognized that increased voter turnout could derive from using these heavily used private spaces. Controversy ensued there, as well, as citizens were not given the same rights to leaflet and talk to citizens as they are in public voting sites spaces."
Funny how that works, eh? The Man just has all the rights. As for The Citizenry? Zero.
Why not just wear a t-shirt with just a big "occupy" on it and "go shopping". Spread out so you won't be considered a group. Mingle amongst the shoppers. You might do better at getting the message across.
What are they going to do? Arrest you for wearing a t-shirt?
Exactly what they will do. Has anyone noticed, we are ALREADY living under fascism? Has anyone noticed that it's OK with most Americans? It's not the loss of our freedoms we hate, it's the loss of our income and spending power. Let a leader like Hitler come along, and we will rally round the flag just as willingly as the Germans did. Remember, Germany was one of the most civilized countries in Europe. Germany gave us Bach and Bethoven, Goethe and Schiller. Yet when Hitler came along giving them the promise of peace and prosperity, it was Sieg Heil time.
Hitler and the Nazis were around for a long while before they got into power in coalition with the Conservatives and then exploited the Nurenburg Fire to declare a never-to-end "emergency" allowing dictatorial rule.
They were not a truly majoritarian party before the police state and the war.
And, don't forget, Hitler and the Nazis were heavily financed with the help of the likes of Prescott Bush and the Harrimans.
---"What are they going to do? Arrest you for wearing a t-shirt?"---
Yup! In 2003, a "shopper" in a mall in Albany, NY, was arrested for wearing a T-shirt with a peace message printed on it. He had even bought the shirt at the mall!
Malls are private property, the mall owner can ask you to leave or face arrest for any reason or no reason at all. Ron Paul is particularly a champion of such "property rights".
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/04/iraq.usa.shirt.reut/
ALL the Red candidates, and Obama, and every member of BOTH Houses of Congress, and every Federal Judge, and likely every State level elected official, and most citizens are for such property rights. ;)
Most poeple belive in resonable limitation with regard to property rights. Specifically, in a private space is open to the public to come and go as they please, they should be treated as public spaces.
Nothing controversial about this. The occupy Pittsburgh camp is on small park that is private property owned by BNY-Mellon Bank. But, under an urban public space ordinance, the bank must allow any and all activities in the park as if it were publicly owned.
Most people believe parks and shopping centers are different, I think you'll find. ;)
I know of no ordinance anywhere that insists shopping centers be treated as public.
by "park" I also mean plazas, squares, and other paved commercial spaces with public access. How are the common areas of a mall different than a public sidewalks in a city shopping district? Where I live, sidewalks are considered part of the private property fronting a public street - but must be maintained by the property owner in safe condition and open for public use, holes and tripping hazards removed, snow removed, etc.
I assume that you are playing some kind of devil's advocate here - or have you drunk the Ron Paul kool-aid too?
The hallways at "malls" are different because they were built by and for the property holder.
The sidewalks may have to be "maintained" by the adjacent property holders, but they are still public property.
They are the equivalent of the roads that run past the "mall's" parking lot, not the hallways or the food court.
The food court at a "mall" is the legal equivalent of the back room at your little shop where the shopkeeper eats lunch. It is a place within a private building for the use of the property holder or those that he designates for purposes that he designates.
Do I have the right to just barge in there univited and do whatever I want?
Does he not have the right to ask me to leave?
If I refuse, does he not have the right to call the police?
Do the police not have a duty to do so?
If the owner isn't around, can he not have employees act on his behalf and do all of the above?
In short, is the shop his private property or not?
Now, you wanna start chucking private property rights, I'm game.
But let's not try to do it in the name of the 99%.
The 99% like property rights just fine. ;)
From CD Headlines archives:
“Published on Wednesday, March 5, 2003 by the Times-Union (Albany, New York)
He Kept His Shirt On -- And Got Arrested
Crossgates Mall shopper charged after refusing to take off shirt with peace slogan
by Carol DeMare
An attorney for the state was arrested and hauled into court after refusing to take off a T-shirt that said "Give Peace a Chance" while shopping at Crossgates Mall.
Roger and Stephen Downs had these shirts made at Crossgates Mall, but Stephen Downs was arrested when he refused to take his off and leave the mall.
This is at least the second time in recent months that mall security asked people wearing T-shirts with peace slogans to leave.”…
.
“by making utterances, intended and plainly likely to provoke immediate violent retaliation” - In layman’s terms: “you have a right to have the shit beat out of you for actually using your right to free speech, you also have a right to remain silent so STFU!
.
Add the legal concept of “intended and plainly likely to provoke immediate violent retaliation” to the long train of abuses (NDAA, corporate personhood, [un]PATRIOT Act….).
Make sure your shirt says “None of my utterances are intended to provoke immediate violent retaliation.” That should take care of it.
In Cohen versus California, the United States Supreme Court overturned a breach of the peace conviction on First Amendment grounds, where the defendant had been charged with a criminal offense for wearing a T-shirt (with a peace sign on it) in a county courthouse, along with the slogan "Fuck the Draft." The defendant had refused officials' orders to turn the offending T-shirt inside out so the message would not offend some onlookers. The highest court in the nation ruled the wearing of the T-shirt was protected free speech.
Unfortunately, if New York's state courts follow the majority/property rights view, Crossroads Mall is private property, not a public space (which the county courthouse obviously is). It's a bit like the signs you see in many restaurants or other private businesses that are open to the public: "we reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason." Even retail stores on private property, however, cannot discriminate against broad categories of patrons on grounds of such things as race or religion.
Which brings us to the interesting twist in your 2003 Downs case. Could the mall management systematically prohibit customers from wearing T-shirts with peace decals on them, and turn their heads to similar T-shirts proclaiming "These colors don't run"?
This is a tougher call. Potential criminal sanctions are being triggered, based entirely upon the content of the political message, not based upon the behavior of the defendant customer.
The one area that some states' laws offer some leeway is where a suspicious enforcement pattern exists. Shopping malls cannot permit Republican candidates to circulate nominating petitions in the food court, and deny similar access to Democratic, Tea Party, or socialist petition circulators. You can ban them all, or permit access to them all, but not selectively pick and choose. Start down that path, and the mall can be held to have established a practice of treating its common areas as public places, public domain where the Bill of Rights' guarantees fully apply.
Anyone know how the Stephen Downs prosecution actually came out? Reprehensible abuses of prosecutorial authority like this take place most easily in times of war - the US invasion of Iraq in the case of Mr. Downs, Vietnam in the case of Mr. Cohen.
Bill from Saginaw
More from CD Headlines archives, excerpt:
Published on Saturday, March 8, 2003 by the Times-Union (Albany, NY)
Guard Says He Lost Job in T-shirt Flap
by Bruce Scruton
The security officer at Crossgates Mall who signed a trespassing complaint against a war protester was fired Friday.
Robert Williams said he was called into the mall security office about four hours into his shift and told he was fired because of Monday's incident and for signing the complaint against Steve Downs, 60, of Selkirk.
Downs' arrest brought Crossgates national notoriety and sparked a protest march against the facility's policies. He was arrested for trespassing when mall officials told him to leave or remove an anti-war T-shirt he had purchased there.
On Wednesday, amid a protest over Downs' arrest, officials from Pyramid Management Group, which operates the mall, said they would drop the charge against Downs.
Williams, who has worked in security at the mall for more than nine years, said he signed the complaint on the orders of his boss, assistant director of security Fred Tallman. Those orders came after Tallman told the Guilderland police officer working the case that he (Tallman) was too busy to come to the police station and that Williams represented the company and should sign.
"I just followed directions of management of that mall to the letter," Williams said Friday evening. "And I get fired for doing my job."…
…"I guess that when it comes down to it," he added, "It's the people who sign the paperwork who get the blame, not the people who told you to do it."
-----------------------------
I’m glad to see this received the protest it deserved. In the end I think the greater opportunity was lost to address the right of free speech and hold management/authority accountable. Rather than lose his job, I would rather have all come to a deeper understanding of FREEDOM.
…
Thanks for the informative response Bill.
Several others have already pointed out that they can and will arrest you for wearing a t-shirt with a 'contentious' message , such as "peace" or perhaps "Occupy Wall Street" or some variation on that theme. I wonder what would happen if the t-shirt said "Don't think about peace" or whatever you want someone to 'NOT' think about, like that "Don't think about a purple elephant" saying.
I like your idea, moonpie. The most effective may be to simply stop shopping. Political dissent is only tolerated when it has little chance of effecting real change, yet gives the public false assurance that we enjoy the freedoms of the 1st amendment. Stop giving the 1% your money. Make it a visible movement, so others begin to feel embarrassed and clueless if they get suckered in by slick ads for new clothes and the latest shoes and the latest cell phone. Create a meme that exalts the worn, the re-used, the ability to "make do" with less. Tie it to American Values of practicality and dislike of waste - values which lie deep in the American psyche.
You are imagining not giving $ to "the 1%" as some sort of free choice we can all just make on our own if only we were't such wimps.
This is false.
Their profit ay everyone else's expense is built into the systems in which most of us spend our lives.
Alternatives must be made available before we guilt folks into living as carefree as a 22-year-old college drop-out. ;)
I mean, should my baby go without health insurance or needed drug treatments because both of these things are rigged to most benefit "the 1%"?
Yes, this is a problem.
Say I decide to shop only locally and make sure all the businesses are locally owned, all mom & pop stores. Say for instance instead of buying a good wrench at some big box store I buy it instead from Pop's Hardware.
Unfortunately Pop only gets a small percentage of the profit made from that wrench. The wrench itself was sold to Pop by a wholesale business owned by a giant corporation. The wrench was made by a giant corporation, perhaps overseas. The financing for the corporations that made the wrench and got it to Pop's store came from the big banks. The sense I have that the wrench is a "good" wrench came from Madison Avenue. Ultimately the profit goes to Wall Street.
We can't fix this system by shopping wiser. We have to change the system.
Precisely.
Thank you for that excellent example.
Changing the system may be the more difficult and daunting path.
But all the others dead end.
And we may not even need to "change" things.
If we can build viable alternatives, the change may then drive itself.
As per your wrench:
1. Co-op or worker owned iron mine or steel recycling op.
2. Co-op or worker owned tool factory.
3. Co-op or worker owned distribution (warehousing/trucking) company.
4. Your mom and pop hardware store.
That'll all take some serious work and capital to set up.
But it it better than another dead end, right? ;)
“This is private property. You have no rights.”
Hilarious! A toad could see the fallacy in that. Most mind-boggling is how Merkans allowed their elite peers to dictate societal conventions. I guess those societal conventions built by elites are slated for destruction by the people's sledgehammer. Occupy that handle. It's the best action you could take. We on the far left are of course re-defining the boundaries of "private property". It's a very unique movement that stands for truth. Extremely rare. Tried everything else, didn't they? And nothing else worked. Evil exhausted. Hilarious! You can tell they have no confidence left.
How about protesting by not voting for their candidates. How about supporting candidates who are independent or at least support your goals. If you don't want money to corrupt politics, how about being willing to vote for candidates who can't or won't raise money because the people that have the money won't contrubute to those who want to topple their power structure. How about supporting things you believe in when they show up. How about instead of blogging an audience that already agrees with you, blog at places where they don't. so you can get to know them and offer another point of view. If the 99% actually believed in something they would vote against losing their freedoms, but they don't. Find out why not. The 99% have less money than the 1%, but most still don't have a clue what the protests are all about or why they should stop watching TV to help save their country. Words are deceptive. The system isn't broken, it's the people who run it that are. They've lost their hope, become cynical, and given up on honor and decency. They can no longer tell right from wrong. They don't know what their job is or how to do it. It doesn't mean that every person who might want to serve is also corrupt. Search out honorable people who would make good candidates for public office and encourage them to run. They don't volunteer because you refuse to vote for someone who might not win. That's cowardice. Bravery is when you enter a battle knowing that there's a good chance you will lose, but you enter into it anyway because you are fighting for something worth fighting for.
Nope. The system itself is the problem. If we retain the system and replace the puppets with ones of our own choosing, we will get similar results. The system funnels wealth and power into a very few hands. The system leverages our hardwired drive for status by defining status as wealth and nudging us towards spending our lives trying to get it.. The system allows corporations to buy policy that is to their liking. The system ensures that we will compete to consume resources rather than cooperate to conserve and use them wisely.
So long as we believe that we can achieve substantive change from within the existing mainstream political architecture--we'll continue to wank away to little effect.
Change the players, and the system will continue to transform them into what it needs. Change the system to one that encourages people to care about each other and the planet they're on, and you get a planet of people who care about each other and the planet they're on.
Miss Schadrie's article in its insights is so avantgarde ......don't responses to it need to be carefully, simply and more clearly stated?
As long as it is clear who folks are writing to in their posts, I am happy. ;)
Shopping malls, by and large, are a dismal legal landscape where freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are concerned. Most states treat suburban malls as creatures of private property law, totally different than the rules that apply for those seeking signatures on a petition, waving a placard, or holding a speakers' rally on the sidewalk, in a park, or on the county courthouse lawn. Very interesting focus on the tactic of Occupy heading towards the malls.
Regardless of the location of this police/rent-a-cop/citizen arrest confrontation, I think the prosecutor's citation charges merit a fast Motion to Dismiss. There is no way in hell "remarks about the Occupy Raleigh protest" can trigger the First Amendment loophole known as the "fighting words" exception to freedom of expression. "Utterances intended and likely to provoke immediate violent retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace" clearly sets forth a speech crime. Mere speech simply cannot be criminalized, even if an artful effort is made to redefine words as actually being a form of conduct.
If in fact the remarks were "directed at the crowd in the food court" and if, in fact, some people hearing those words were provoked into immediate, unruly retaliation, it is settled law that the duty of the cops is to calm and restrain the unruly listeners, not to arrest and silence the speakers. This is the key holding of a famous US Supreme Court decision which is still good law - Terminiello versus City of Chicago.
Bill from Saginaw
With the privatization spree the U.S. has been on for the past 40 years or so, along with the devastation of 'main street' through corporate owned malls and casinos ... the 'town common' ... the last bastion where one could freely voice dissent and gather to wrangle with community and political concerns ... has been destroyed. Continued privatization of schools, K-12, corporate owned, corporate controlled on privately owned property brings any inkling of dissent, or simple questioning of authority, to an end. Children will never know the cost. We adults have allowed fundamental rights and liberties to be drawn and quartered by the corporation; by the paycheck; by the benefit package; by the propaganda of financial and material consumption; by the fancy, colorful, climate-controlled malls and casinos; by the glittering lights. We have been like herds of cattle being plied to the stockyard with a little grain and all the walled-in shutes ... not really seeing, not really knowing where it ultimately leads and how it all ends ... all for that little bit of grain. Public schools, in the past, were places where children and young people could find their way to adulthood ... being exposed to all the possibilities, to right and wrong, to rebel to find the truth, to question to find the answers or simply ... the possibilities. Corporate controlled education is just that ... it is corporate and it is controlled ... no place for dissent, rebellion, questioning authority, searching for all possibilities, finding the truth. Just as in occupying a mall, those not conforming to the corporate rules will be dealt with until they conform. So ... all the promises of bigger, better, brighter, faster, greater efficiency, lower cost ... all come with HIGHER COSTS with the corporate propaganda machine having eaten away at the stronghold of our Democracy ... the meaning of our Democracy.
Fortunately, I live in such a "quaint village" as the suburban-Californian/Piedmont Carolinian author of this piece calls still-functioning public urban spaces (pretty much extinct down south, and most of California). I did all my christmas shopping in such "quaint" public spaces.
A mistake made on purpose has proven the courts to be nothing more than puppets since 1886(1776 to now) to the Corporations that invented, paid for and support this legal system!
The Malls are nothing more than a feeding ground for the masses procreated by these same Corporations that invented, paid for and support this legal system!
All they want is your money, your health, and what ever wealth you might have to retire on!
Corporations are not "Individuals"
A really interesting Tidbit Corporations are not "Individuals"!
A law clerk/court reporter wrote a short cursory note on the top of a Court decision decree stated that a "Corporation had Individuals rights, just as if it was a Natural living Individual "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case.
By these Actions as court reporter in the 1886 "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case", Bancroft Davis is a key figure in the corporate personhood debate. Journalists have since cited Bancroft Davis's prior position as president of Newburgh and New York Railway as evidence of a monetary conflict of interest in the corporate personhood interpretation of the ruling.
So when we refer to Corporations as having "The same Rights as Natural Individuals" the Law is way out of bounds and has never been the real truth!
This is a conspiracy of half truths and lies used to dominate, undermine, and humiliate the Poor, the Underprivileged, now what is left of the Middle class.
Corporate personhood
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Corporate personhood debate)
The corporate personhood debate refers to the controversy (primarily in the United States) over the question of what subset of rights afforded under the law to natural persons should also be afforded to corporations as legal persons.
In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819. In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.[1][2] Some critics of corporate personhood, however, most notably author Thom Hartmann in his book "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," claim that this was an intentional misinterpretation of the case inserted into the Court record by reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis.[3] Bancroft Davis had previously served as president of Newburgh and New York Railway Co.
In May 1886 United States Supreme Court clerk J.C. Bancroft Davis, former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway, Company inserted a headnote to the United States Reports pertaining to the Court’s decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. Thus with out a formal court ruling, this simple act set a precedent and effectively established corporations as legal persons entitled to the same rights as living, breathing persons under the 14th amendment. This act set precedence over the case of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission that opened the floodgates of corporate money in elections. From the environment, energy, and healthcare to jobs, education and the economy, the greed of big multi-national corporations is laying waste to the American dream, our abilty to unite in labor unions, and our democracy. As a matter of law, and inquiring when to apply the law and to whom it applies, let us look to The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as it officially abolished and continues to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. When a corporation commits a crime, say, in the last financial crisis mitigating the economic upheaval around the world, and the government bailouts given to banking giants who promptly paid themselves bonuses, and later sat unashamadedly in front of the congressional hearings when asked where the money went they keep quiet, does the law apply to corporations who commit fraud and financial crimes by avoidance of paying taxes, under the Federal Taxation Code, or do they not want to have the same rights when it comes time to stand up and pay their dues?
Proponents of corporate personhood believe that corporations, as associations of shareholders, were intended by the founders and framers to enjoy many, if not all, of the same rights as would the shareholders acting individually, such as the right to lobby the government, the right to due process and compensation before being deprived of property, and the right, as legal entities, to speak freely. All of these rights have been upheld by the U.S. courts.
Role in corporate personhood controversy
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bancroft_Davis
Acting as court reporter in the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case, Bancroft Davis is a key figure in the corporate personhood debate. Journalists have since cited Bancroft Davis's prior position as president of Newburgh and New York Railway as evidence of a conflict of interest in the corporate personhood interpretation of the ruling.
Perhaps I am way out in 'left' field but if corporations are considered 'persons' and have all the rights of personhood, and those corporations are associations of shareholders who then are 'persons' and if those 'persons' are registered voters then I would deduce that those 'persons' have more influence simply ... without taking into account their combined influence as a block and all the money for furthering their sphere of influence. So ... I as a registered voter have ONE vote ... one corporation has an exponential number of votes. Then, take that corporation and imagine shareholders of that corporation NOT being U.S. citizens and/or NOT having the 'imagined' legal right to vote ... as being a shareholder of the corporation ... which now has rights of personhood ... can then take part and/or influence our political system by way of shareholdership. Has this been discussed anywhere? Does anyone else see the line we have crossed with the so-called 'citizens united' ruling?
Transnational corporations influencing the U.S. political system? Corporations headquartering themselves outside the U.S. for tax benefits and regulatory evasion yet doing business within the U.S. have the luxury of political influence yet hold no allegiance to the U.S. The erroneous acts, positions and decisions of the 1800's ... allowed to persist, cultivate, ruminate and deviate ... have developed a monster. Have you considered the Federal Reserve ... as a private corporation influencing U.S. politics and policy? The 'revolving door' between Wall Street, 'K' Street, corporations, U.S. Congress and U.S. Senate ... lobbyists without being required to declare themselves as lobbyists. Circumventing law whether intentional or not initially has since been used and abused through perpetuating the errors, misstatements, misunderstandings ... allowing for precedence ... precedence trumping law ... precedence in and of itself becoming law. Am I wrong? I don't believe so. I fear for what evolves next.
Not even the grounds of our State Capitol are public space in Raleigh. There is no more public space. Tear down the Walls.