Justin Elliott at Salon has a rather interesting history of the concept of corporate personhood in America’s court system, which Mitt Romney brought back into the spotlight with some recent comments at Ames. He’s exploring it in an interview with 2004 Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb, who hates the idea but still reveals some of the pertinent details of why Romney is right. Of course, the first quote from Cobb sets the tone for his argument.

Mitt Romney said “corporations are people.” Is he right?

Well, he’s correct in the sense that the U.S. Supreme Court has said that corporations are persons with inherent constitutional rights. Of course, he’s wrong just as the court is wrong.

I see. So he’s wrong except for the fact that the highest court in the land examined the question and said he was right? Got it.

Some of the background provided includes cases dating back to the 1800s, including Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railway. He also references Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee from 1933, which is one I hadn’t previously heard of but is clearly an early signal of the court’s intent. The case challenged a law which sought to establish a different, more lenient tax system for small, locally owned business than for large, interstate chain stores. While it may sound like a noble way to protect a mom and pop business from Walmart, the courts noted that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

The basic premise of the argument supporting corporate personhood is that corporations are composed of people. When these people come together and speak as a group – particularly through the collective power of the corporation’s cash – they are still engaged in speech. Cobb then sums up the opposition argument.

The basic argument the court has made is that corporations are just composed of people who have individual human rights. Therefore when those people come together to create a corporation, the collection of people should be able to exercise those same constitutional rights. That’s not logical, though, because these groups of people are not speaking with one mind. And they have not created an inherent human being whenever they come together collectively.

It’s easy to see how a subject this convoluted has brought up such a firestorm in public debate. But at least for the time being the courts seem to be speaking with one voice on it.