The modern business corporation is an artificial creation which shields its owners and managers from accountability and public scrutiny.
The American Revolution was as much a revolt against British corporations as it was against the English parliament and king. The Boston Tea Party was, in fact, a protest against the monopoly on tea sales by the royally chartered British East India Company. It is ironic that today's "tea party" movement is primarily funded and directed by corporate interests.
The newly formed United States of America was rightfully mistrustful of corporate power; the states were very careful in how they granted charters. Most of the early corporations were for the express purpose of establishing towns and colleges, or for building roads, bridges and harbors -endeavors that were prohibitive for individuals.
For the first 100 years of our nation's history, corporations were chartered by individual states for a specific purpose and for a specified and limited time. When they had achieved their purpose - or failed to - they were dissolved.
They were prohibited from participating in politics and from owning stock in other corporations. In most cases their charters did not shield owners from responsibility for harm done by the corporation.
In the early 19th century bank charters were limited to 3 to 10 years and they were prohibited from engaging in trade.
Corporations that abused their charters were dissolved and their owners held liable for any debts or damages.
Most states had statutes specifying that corporations existed only to serve the public good. In 1809 the Virginia Supreme Court wrote: "If the object is merely private or selfish; if it is detrimental to, or not promotive of, the public good, they have no claim upon the legislature for the privilege (of being granted a charter)."
Over time, however, corporate interests were able to convince courts to grant them increasingly greater powers and privileges.
In a landmark case in 1886 (Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad), the U.S. Supreme Court declared that a corporation was a "natural person" entitled to all the rights of a real human being. Unsurprisingly, the clerk of the court who wrote the summary was a former railroad company president.
This decision opened the floodgates for what has amounted to a hostile takeover of America's political system.
However, Mitt Romney's protestations notwithstanding, the distinctions between corporations and human beings are obvious and significant
Corporations enjoy the power of succession, which means that they can continue to live and accrue capital beyond the possibilities of mortal humans.
They are bound by no moral strictures or conscience; in fact, they are usually bound by their charters to place profits ahead of moral and ethical considerations.
Because corporations tend to accrue capital and influence, it is no surprise that this capital and influence are used to affect public policy in ways that grant greater influence and profit.
Lucrative defense contracts, farm subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies are examples of how corporations use this power. The greatest return on investment is from lobbying. A $10,000 investment in a political action committee can yield a $10 million government contract.
Regulatory agencies established to safeguard the public welfare are eventually captured by the very industries they regulate.
Why aren't we more outraged? Why do we accept this assault on democracy? Isn't it time we real and human citizens of the United States reclaimed our country? Can we at least level the playing field so our voices can be heard as loudly and clearly as Goldman Sachs or Exxon?
Larry Robinson is a Sebastopol resident and former 12-year member of city council.