Are corporations creatures of the state?

In Citizens United v. FEC, the recent campaign finance case I discussed here and here, the Supreme Court noted that one of the arguments for restricting corporate speech is that “[s]tate law grants corporations certain advantages–such as limited liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets.” According to this line of argument, corporations are “creatures of the state” and they give up any claim to First Amendment rights in exchange for special state-granted favors.
In answer to this argument, the Court quoted a dissent by Scalia from a previous decision: “It is rudimentary that the State cannot exact as the price of those special advantages the forfeiture of First Amendment rights.”
The Court, which admirably upheld the free speech rights of corporations, took it for granted that corporations wouldn’t exist save for special favors from the state. It’s a common view of corporations. But it’s one that must be questioned.
There’s reason to think that all of a corporation’s essential features–”corporate personhood,” perpetual life, and limited liability–could arise by voluntary agreement among individuals on a free market, without a single government favor. Consider what many regard as one of the most controversial features of a corporation, limited liability. Read the rest of this entry »




A thoughtful reader sent in a comment I’d like to discuss, in response to my post, “
The House
Would you stake $11,000 on your ability to read the mind of a faceless bureaucrat? Well,
The Supreme Court just heard arguments in the case of Citizens United v. FEC concerning whether the government was right to ban Citizens United from airing Hillary: The Movie during the ‘09 elections. You might think that in a country with a First Amendment that would be a short discussion, but under our campaign finance rules, the government imposes severe restrictions on political speech.
Entries (RSS)