Executive Summary

‍
The phrase "corporate personhood" refers to the ongoing legal discussion over which rights traditionally associated with natural persons should also be afforded to juridical persons including corporations such as the Fourteenth Amendment. The brief will cover the constitutional basis for corporate personhood, and how it affects political campaigns, regulation, and corporate accountability and policy implications.

Overview

In this paper, I have explored the concept of corporate personhood, a legal principle that grants corporations certain rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Although the idea of corporations enjoying rights akin to individuals was always a part of American legal thought, it was officially cited and solidified in the landmark case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886). In this case, Chief Justice Waite stated,

"The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does."

This pivotal ruling confirmed that corporations, like individuals, are entitled to the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment, including the critical guarantee of equal protection under the law. As a result, corporations gained legal rights that allowed them to own property, enter contracts, and sue or be sued in courts. However, the recognition of corporate personhood also had unintended consequences. While these rights granted corporations some of the privileges afforded to individuals, they also bestowed upon them a form of political power that can sometimes appear disproportionate to their role in society. With immense financial resources and the ability to form domestic and international connections, corporations have the potential to exert influence over political processes, elections, and even legislative agendas. This political power is particularly evident in the realm of campaign financing, where corporations, through political action committees (PACs) and other means, can make significant contributions that impact elections and policy making.

The financial might of corporations, in conjunction with their legal rights, raises important questions about the nature of democracy and the equitable representation of citizens in the political process. When corporations are able to pour substantial amounts of money into campaigns, it can diminish the voice of individual voters, making it harder for everyday citizens to have their concerns heard and addressed by elected officials. This disparity in political influence can undermine the integrity of democratic systems, as the interests of the wealthy and powerful may take precedence over the needs of the general population.

In this brief, I will delve deeper into the ways in which corporate personhood influences political elections, examining the negative aspects of this legal principle. I will also explore how corporate power, if left unchecked, can erode public trust in both corporations and elected officials. Finally, I will argue that implementing stronger regulations and policies aimed at increasing corporate accountability can help mitigate the undue influence of corporations in politics, ensuring a more fair and transparent political system that genuinely serves the interests of all citizens, not just the wealthy few.

Relevance

In American society, everything we consume—from our creative media to the products we hold in the cabinets of our kitchen—was produced and distributed by a corporation. Almost always, we were influenced to purchase a subscription or product by its packaging, an advertisement we could not forget, or a claim. Consumption is the main goal of these corporations; the more we consume, the more they maximize profits. To get to peak consumption, they have to convince their audience—the general public—that we absolutely need whatever they’re selling, creating a culture of cheap labor, exaggerated claims of environmental friendliness or health, and fast-moving trends. Corporations' efforts are not limited to promoting their products or measuring profit but are spread into an involvement in politics and almost all domestic proceedings. With the Fourteenth Amendment, corporations gained the same liberties as natural persons, creating "corporate personhood," which has yet to be completely understood by the public, creating a lack of transparency. Given the weakening of corporate regulations in domestic politics, we have seen a rise in dark money expenditures and super PACs' involvement, which directly fund the campaigns of politicians, overruled private citizens' political power, which is a cause for concern.

History

Current Stances

The undeniable need for "corporate personhood" was the issue of separating a corporation from its organizers and investors to ensure longevity. This not only allowed certain protections and the ability to sue or for corporations to be sued but in Citizens United v. FEC (2010), also held that they were protected by the First Amendment. Allowing them a right to free speech, particularly political speech. This was taken further as it was explicitly stated in 1 U.S. Code § 1, the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint-stock companies, as well as individuals unless stated otherwise.

With the Tillman Act of 1907, limited campaign spending for corporations and being the longest standing campaign limitation, Citizens United v. FEC weakened the effectiveness of the act. Although corporations were required to disclose their donations and were not able to donate directly to candidates, the 2010 case created a loophole known as Political Action Committees or PACs. These are organizations that raise and spend money for campaigns, and their main function is to support or oppose political candidates or ballot initiatives, although they are still subject to contribution limitations of five thousand dollars per election. However, in Speechnow.org v. FEC (2010), the same logic from Citizens United v. FEC was used, which cemented the decision that outside organizations could accept unlimited funds from corporations and individuals as long as it is not given directly to candidates.

Labeled ‘super PACs,’ these independent organizations could spend money on independently produced ads and on other communications that promote or attack specific candidates. According to the Brennan Center for Justice with donations from the upper class and corporations in the 2024 election, these super PACs set a record of at least $2.7 billion on just the federal election. This also led to an increase in ‘dark money expenditures,’ which are hard-to-track donations and election spending, which they also reported increased from less than $5 million in 2006 to more than $1 billion in the 2024 presidential elections alone.

Policy Problem

A. Stakeholders

‍It is given that the primary stakeholders are corporations themselves, especially those who stand to benefit from involving themselves in political elections. With candidates who support certain economic policies, corporations stand to benefit directly from their support. They also are a key member in discussions about exploring the concept of corporate personhood in politics as they are the main benefactor of domestic elections and can bring a more nuanced perspective to the table from an economic standpoint.
‍

Another stakeholder are private citizens who are concerned about the involvement of corporations in electoral politics due to their high level of financial influence and political connections. The public is essential in this discussion as its main purpose is to restore faith in political institutions, elected officials, and the belief that they are acting in the best interest of the public. Both stakeholders will benefit from more regulations on corporate accountability in politics and a more balanced perspective that supports businesses and private citizens.

B. Risks of Indifference

‍
The risk of indifference to the growing involvement of corporations in politics and the weakening of regulations on them because of the concept of corporate personhood is the public's distrust. Private citizens are becoming more distrustful of corporations, which in turn may affect the way they have to navigate the economic market. People are also growing more suspicious of their elected officials if it is found out that a major corporation or the shell company of a major corporation donated millions to get them in office. It only makes sense for there to be action, rather than inaction, to restore trust in democratic institutions.

C. Nonpartisan Reasoning

‍
Because weakening of corporate regulations doesn’t only affect individuals, but rather societies and communities themselves, it is imperative that nonpartisan intervention takes place. The benefits of such intervention include but are not limited to the following:

1. Economic growth for small businesses: Fairer taxation and long-term economic growth are key benefits that can arise from increased regulations on corporate political influence. When corporations have excessive sway over policymakers, they often push for tax loopholes, subsidies, and policies that disproportionately benefit large businesses at the expense of smaller competitors and the general public. This can lead to an uneven tax burden, where small businesses and individual taxpayers shoulder more of the responsibility while large corporations contribute less. By implementing stricter regulations on corporate lobbying and political donations, governments can create a more equitable tax system that ensures businesses pay their fair share.

A fairer tax system helps fund essential public services such as education, infrastructure, healthcare, and social programs, which in turn contribute to a stronger and more productive economy. When companies invest in a well-regulated economy with a stable tax structure, they benefit from improved infrastructure, a well-educated workforce, and healthier consumers, all of which enhance long-term economic growth. Additionally, fair competition, rather than tax advantages for a select few, encourages innovation, entrepreneurship, and job creation. By reducing corporate influence over tax policy, regulations promote a more balanced economic environment that benefits businesses and society as a whole.

2. Reducing Corruption: Stricter regulations on corporate political donations and lobbying can help prevent corporations from exerting disproportionate influence over lawmakers. When companies are allowed to donate unlimited amounts to campaigns or spend heavily on lobbying, they can push for policies that prioritize their interests, often at the expense of public welfare. By imposing donation limits, requiring disclosure of political contributions, and tightening lobbying restrictions, regulations ensure that policymaking is driven more by public interest rather than corporate agendas. This can lead to fairer policies in areas like taxation, environmental protection, labor laws, and consumer rights.
3. Increased Public Trust and Reputation: Increased public trust and a strong reputation are significant benefits for corporations operating within a well-regulated political system. When companies engage transparently and ethically, they build stronger relationships with consumers, employees, and investors. Consumers are more likely to support brands that demonstrate integrity and social responsibility, leading to increased brand loyalty and long-term profitability. Similarly, investors prefer companies that avoid political scandals and unethical lobbying, as these businesses present lower risks and greater stability. Employees also benefit from working for ethical companies, leading to higher job satisfaction, better retention rates, and an overall positive workplace culture. Additionally, corporations that maintain transparency and ethical business practices build stronger relationships with communities, fostering goodwill and long-term partnerships. In times of crisis, such as economic downturns or public relations challenges, companies with strong reputations are more likely to recover quickly due to the trust they have built with the public. By embracing fair regulations, corporations can achieve sustainable success without relying on political influence for short-term gains.‍

Tried Policy

‍Throughout history, several policies have been introduced to regulate corporate influence in politics, aiming to promote transparency and reduce corruption. One of the earliest efforts was the Tillman Act of 1907, which prohibited corporations from making direct financial contributions to federal political campaigns. While groundbreaking at the time, its enforcement was weak, and corporations continued to find loopholes to exert influence. Later, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, amended in 1974, placed limits on campaign contributions, mandated disclosure requirements, and established the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce campaign finance laws. This was a significant step toward regulating corporate donations, but corporations still found ways to circumvent restrictions, such as through political action committees (PACs).

‍
In an effort to further reduce corporate money in politics, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act. This law aimed to eliminate "soft money" contributions, large, unregulated donations to political parties, and restricted corporate-funded electioneering communications close to elections. However, its effectiveness was later undermined by court rulings, most notably the Citizens United v. FEC (2010) decision. This landmark Supreme Court ruling determined that corporations and unions have First Amendment rights similar to individuals, allowing them to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns through independent expenditures and Super PACs. As a result, corporate influence in politics increased dramatically, with unprecedented levels of political spending shaping elections and policy decisions.
Beyond campaign finance, efforts have also been made to regulate corporate lobbying. The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 sought to increase transparency by requiring lobbyists to register and report their activities. This was followed by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, which strengthened lobbying regulations by imposing stricter disclosure requirements and limiting gifts from lobbyists to lawmakers. While these laws improved transparency, corporate lobbying remains a powerful tool for influencing policy, often benefiting large corporations at the expense of smaller businesses and the general public.

‍
Financial sector regulations have also addressed corporate political spending. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010), primarily designed to prevent another financial crisis, included provisions requiring corporations to disclose their political spending to shareholders. This was intended to enhance corporate accountability and ensure that investors were aware of how company funds were being used in politics. However, corporate opposition and legal challenges have weakened the enforcement of these provisions.
Despite these efforts, corporate influence in politics remains a contentious issue, with ongoing debates about the effectiveness of past policies and the need for stronger reforms. Many policymakers and advocacy groups continue to push for new measures, such as overturning Citizens United, imposing stricter lobbying regulations, and increasing transparency in political spending. The challenge lies in balancing corporate participation in the political process with the need to protect democratic integrity and prevent undue influence over policymaking.

Policy Options

‍
Strengthening Antitrust Laws
Strengthening antitrust laws is a key strategy to reduce corporate power and its influence in politics. Antitrust laws ensure competitive markets by preventing monopolistic behaviors, anti-competitive practices, and the excessive concentration of power. When large corporations dominate markets, they can set prices, control access to services, and use their influence to shape policies in their favor, undermining competition and increasing political leverage.

Key reforms include tightening the review process for mergers and acquisitions to prevent monopolies, revising the definition of market power to account for factors like labor and data control, and targeting anti-competitive practices such as price-fixing and predatory pricing. Breaking up monopolies in industries like tech and finance would reduce corporate dominance, while promoting market entry for smaller businesses would foster innovation and competition. Strengthening antitrust enforcement agencies such as the FTC and DOJ would ensure these laws are actively applied, helping to monitor corporate behavior and prevent anti-competitive actions.

Together, these measures would reduce the ability of corporations to use economic power to shape policy, promote a fairer market, and restore trust in the political system. By increasing competition and limiting monopolistic power, these reforms would help ensure that policies serve the public interest rather than corporate elites.

Stricter Lobbying Regulations and a Cooling-Off Period for Former Officials
Stricter lobbying regulations and cooling-off periods for former government officials are essential measures to curb the influence of corporate interests in the political process. Lobbying is a powerful tool for corporations to influence lawmakers and shape public policy, and while lobbying is a legitimate part of democratic governance, excessive corporate influence through lobbying can lead to regulatory capture, where policies are shaped to benefit powerful industries rather than the public good.

Stricter lobbying regulations would involve requiring more transparency and disclosure about lobbying activities. This could include mandating real-time reporting of meetings between lobbyists and lawmakers, as well as requiring detailed information on the amount of money spent on lobbying efforts and the issues being lobbied. By making lobbying activities more transparent, the public and regulators can better understand the influence being exerted on policymakers and identify potential conflicts of interest.

In addition to transparency, there is a need for tighter restrictions on the types of lobbying that can occur. For instance, limiting or prohibiting "revolving door" practices, where former government officials immediately transition into lobbying roles for industries they once regulated, is a key reform. This practice can create conflicts of interest, as former officials may use their insider knowledge to benefit their new employers, undermining public trust in the government.

Introducing a cooling-off period, requiring former officials to wait a certain number of years before they can work as lobbyists for industries they once regulated, would reduce this revolving door dynamic. A longer cooling-off period, such as five years, would help prevent the undue influence of former officials in lobbying efforts and reduce the potential for conflicts of interest.

These reforms would help restore public trust in the political system by reducing the influence of corporate money in lobbying. By promoting greater transparency and reducing conflicts of interest, these measures would ensure that policies are shaped by the public interest rather than corporate power.

Conclusion

‍To address the growing concerns about corporate personhood and its effect on politics, a comprehensive set of policy solutions should be implemented. Strengthening antitrust laws would reduce corporate dominance, promote competition, and limit the ability of corporations to use their financial resources to shape policies. Stricter lobbying regulations and a cooling-off period for former officials would ensure greater transparency, reduce conflicts of interest, and prevent corporate interests from unduly influencing policymakers. These reforms, if enacted, would contribute to a more equitable political system where policies serve the public interest, rather than the interests of powerful corporations. Such changes would help restore public trust in democratic institutions and ensure that the political process remains fair, transparent, and accountable.

References

[1] "Corporate Personhood: What It Means and How It Has Evolved." Purdue Global Law School. Accessed March 2, 2025. https://www.purduegloballawschool.edu/blog/news/corporate-personhood.

[2] Torres-Spelliscy, Ciara. “The History of Corporate Personhood.” Brennan Center for Justice. Accessed March 1, 2025. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/history-corporate-personhood.

[3] Pruitt, Sarah. “How the 14th Amendment Made Corporations into ‘People.’” History.com. Accessed March 3, 2025. https://www.history.com/news/14th-amendment-corporate-personhood-made-corporations-into-people.

[4] Bowie, Nikolas. “Corporate Personhood v. Corporate Statehood.” Harvard Law Review, March 24, 2023. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-132/corporate-personhood-v-corporate-statehood.