The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution secures the right of the people to petition the government:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
There are several interesting things about this formulation. The first is that it occurs in the very first amendment right along with freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and the press. The second is that although we consider this the universal law of the land, I doubt that the guys who wrote it and voted on it saw it that way. They saw it as a restriction on the power of the federal government but not necessarily on the states.
The third interesting thing about it is that it secures the right for the people.
Here’s my question: is it right and prudent to extend this right to the artificial persons known as corporations, whether for profit or not for profit?
I would not want corporations to have a right to petition, but I do think its prudent that they be given the opportunity to petition. By that I mean, I would not have the courts invalidate laws that impede a corporation’s ability to petition. But I believe corporatoins can contribute to the discussion of good public policy in a way that individuals may not have the ability.
It is an equivalent question to ask, “Is it right and prudent to extend freedom of expression to the artificial persons known as corporations, whether for profit or not for profit?” The first amendment taken as a unit protects the right not only to believe what one wants, but to express that belief.
As to whether it should apply to corporations, do you mean to specifically refer only to incorporated entities, or all organizations? If the former, should incorporated individuals, such as many consultants, be prohibited from petitioning the government? What about other collective entities such as LLCs or partnerships? Were I to join with you in a consultancy, not incorporated, but using either a DBA or proprietorship arrangement, would that be sufficient to prevent us from jointly petitioning the government? Should all joint petition be ended, and only individual petition allowed? Does that then follow through to other forms of expression, such as funding campaigns?
Would it be possible to preserve the rights of association and joint petition and still to prevent joint petition by certain associations, without being utterly arbitrary?
I suspect that your real issue might be with Eastern RR Presidents Conf v. Noerr Motor Freight, which expanded the right of petition beyond the redress of grievances into the right to petition government to affirmatively use its powers in furtherance of private interests. I have to think more about it, but I might have a problem with that as well.
My favorite “petition” anecdote relates to John Quincy Adams and the Gag Rule, which sought to prevent petitions to Congress advocating abolition of slavery. Rep. Adams saw the Gag Rule as a violation of the right to petition and continued to use parliamentary tricks to avoid it. One day, he announced to the chamber that he had a petition signed by twenty-two slaves, all endorsing the institution of slavery. The House was outraged and the Gag Rule was modified to hold that slaves do not have the right to petition. All in all, though the attempt to ban the petitions embarrassed the slave power more than had the petitions just been read to no effect.
See the GPO’s annotated Constitution for some interesting discussion on the issue, including the anecdote PD Shaw relates.
Jeff, I’m not advocating anything, just asking. I can see pro’s and con’s to both sides.
As to what sort of entities I’m thinking about, the only sorts of organizations that exist are sole proprietorships, partnerships, and corporations (whether formally incorporated or not), no? Sole proprietorships and partnerships are just extensions of the individual people involved so only corporations would require special consideration.
Quite.
Right as in constitutional right? Probably not. Allowed to as in no law prohibiting such action. Sure. It would be unfair for partnerships and sole proprietorships to petition the govt. but forbid publicly traded companies to do so.
Besides a constitution right for artificial persons to petition the govt would create a really weird set of problems in fifty years or so given the rate that advancements in the fields of robotics are progressing.
Corporations became “persons” in 1886, by a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. It was based on the 14th Amendment. Yet another consequence of that poorly-thought-out change in the Constitution. It has nothing to do with the Founders or their conception of the rights of the people. It is a concept of the Gilded Age and the era of the robber barons. One more reason I say Thaddeus Stevens’ ugly brick office-house, not Mount Vernon, is the home of the founder of America.