Are Corporations People?

It would be no exaggeration to suggest that Free Speech is fundamental to our American Democracy and one of the most basic rights protected by the first Amendment to the United States Constitution.

A continuing controversy persists about free speech when it relates to political speech however. For example, is a political contribution an exercise of free speech? Can contributions be excessive such that they might exert improper influence on the outcome of an election? If indeed, political contributions are considered the exercise of a First Amendment right can there be placed a limit on such contributions in the name or protecting free speech?

It gets even more murky when the 'free speech' is being exercised by a corporation. Are corporations people? In an April 2007 ruling Federal Judge Paul Barbadoro found that corporations, as legal persons, have "free speech rights that would be infringed . . . ." in a case involving doctors and drug companies.

It is no secret that corporations spend a lot of money in the support of particular candidates or legislation that is in their best interest. Is this free speech too? Should such campaign financing therefore be protected as free speech in such cases?

Central to this discussion is the decision in the late 1800's that established "the doctrine of corporate personhood -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings".

One might have serious doubts about such an interpretation of the First Amendment when one considers the different treatment of people and corporations in a court of law. One has to ask if a corporation has ever been or could be sentenced to life in prison (or even executed) should its deliberate and/or negligent actions be found to be directly responsible for the death of an individual, as would a person on trial in similar circumstances.

There is no shortage of articles describing corporate behavior which has directly caused serious injury or death of employees and customers. Tobacco, lead paint, mining disasters come to mind. Negligence in aircraft maintenance has been in the news recently with its tragic consequences.

In some cases individual executives have been singled out and punished but the standard response of courts has been some sort of fine or reprimand for the corporation.

Corporations do enjoy the privileges of 'personhood' but they certainly have few of the responsibilities or obligations of real people.

Clearly corporations are not persons and it's about time we stopped pretending that they are.

Maybe it's just me.

New job opportunity: Director of Fear Mongering

What in the world is going on around the country? Have we just become gullible and lazy or have we always been so? Sarah Palin calls a provision of the health care bill a "death panel", Sen. Chuck Grassley worries that people might think that the government can coerce an older person to choose to die so he advocates removal of the provision in the bill that offers to cover end of life consultations.

And many people believe them!

On the other hand, since when does a medical consultation have to include anything in particular? It's a voluntary private conversation between a doctor and a patient, isn't it? And they're covered by Medicare so why in the world did the drafters of the bill even have to bring it up?

Foolish decisions all around.

A Crime Against Integrity

Amazing.

So Rhode Island's Attorney General agreed on Thursday that there were two "bad checks", city employees behaved in a manner that was "unprofessional", "misguided", and "inexplicable" , and the superintendent of the state police called their behavior "unsettling".

On the same front page, the Board of Elections, also on Thursday, concluded that the Attorney General, in an unrelated matter, had not violated state statute by calling $9000 in his campaign spending "petty cash" when the law limits petty cash spending to $25.

In both instances complaints were dismissed and no crimes were found to have been committed.

I submit that there was a crime committed, a crime against integrity, a crime against the people who deserve to have admiration and confidence in their government.

I'd recommend that all involved read Stuart Chase's, "The Nemesis of American Business", written after the crash of 1929 during the Great Depression, especially Chapter 2, "The Luxury of Integrity"

Maybe it's just me.

Racism, Still

The Gates story is inflating beyond control. For anyone who doesn't know, it seems that a distinguished Harvard scholar, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested for disorderly conduct during a confrontation with a Cambridge, MA police officer investigating a reported break-in attempt at Gates' home.

From the newspaper account and the police report it would appear that Mr. Gates became outraged that a police officer would question him about the alleged break-in.

On the other hand the police office was indeed called by someone who witnessed two black men on the front porch apparently trying to break into the home on Ware St. in Cambridge.

Mr. Gates allegedly yelled at the police that the only reason he was questioned was that he "was a black man in America". In my view Mr. Gates was overly sensitive to his race as the precipitating factor in the officer's behavior which angered the officer.

On the other hand the police office should have used more common sense, and as soon as Prof. Gates' identity was confirmed he should have simply apologized for the misunderstanding and left the premises.

My take is that they both were guilty of feeling insulted and not accorded the respect to which each felt entitled.

All in all, a petty and provocative reaction by a Harvard professor and an over reaction by the police officer. In any case the latest news is that the charges have been dropped. Good.

There is plenty of real racism against which to fight without diluting and trivializing what in my opinion, is still the biggest problem facing this country, true racism.

The President didn't help either. He should have taken the opportunity to encourage dialogue on this most important issue facing the nation. Instead he took sides after saying he didn't know all the facts in the case. A missed opportunity, in my view.

Just Do It

Just how can any thinking person object?

I suggested some time ago that the Secretary of State modify the Voter Handbooks that are distributed prior to elections to include more information about the Proposals that appear on the ballot. Currently the information is expressed in limited terms, too technical and confusing to the average voter and neglects to present any possible negative consequences of the proposal.

I propose that the Handbook shall present explanations of each proposal, pro and con, drafted by supporters and opponents using language that is acceptable to the Secretary of State as being objective representations of each position.

Do we choose to know little or nothing about the matters before us or do we prefer making informed decisions on the matters that concern us?

If we read this and do nothing we have made our choice.

Needs Saying Again

I apologize to readers for bringing this up again but I believe that ethical government is the foundation of democracy without which everything else is window dressing.

Our Supreme Court has shown contempt for both Rhode Islanders and common sense in its recent 3-1 decision (William V. Irons v Rhode Island Ethics Commission).

It seems to me that unethical behavior of a legislator is of the greatest concern precisely where the Court claims it is no one else's business, during "speech and debate".

In 1986 the people passed by a huge majority, ethics legislation which amended the Rhode Island Constitution and the people have been ignored.

Tell Them We're Mad

The editorial in the Journal on Monday, June 8, illuminated a puzzle; why do we keep sending poor legislators back year after year?  One observation was that many  candidates run unopposed.  When voters are faced with such an option there is no way to express dissatisfaction other than to leave the candidate's name unchecked.

I'd recommend another option.  I'd like to see an option to vote against an unopposed candidate; a check box or arrow that indicates a NO vote.  It would be much more meaningful if the votes for an unopposed candidate elected with 2,400 votes looked like this instead:

YES     2,400

NO       4,400

We the people should have the opportunity to vote our dissatisfaction during an election other than by silence for an unopposed candidate. The candidate would still get elected but at least will know that people are mad.

Maybe it's just me.

Sound of Silence

Today's (June 4, 2009) North East Independent carried a story about the poor performance of North Kingstown High School.  It is one of about 15% of Rhode Island Schools that have missed NCLB targets for multiple years. 

Several people and groups were referenced in the article including Superintendent Dr. Phil Thornton.  There were statistics on different student groups in several areas of learning, especially math and reading and writing and they were deficient in most. 

There was not one word mentioned about the teachers' union and its position on this critical topic. From their website:

The National Education Association North Kingstown is a professional organization dedicated to work for the welfare of school children, the advancement of education, and the improvement of instructional opportunities for all.

The news article was about the very issues to which the union claims to be dedicated yet their silence is deafening. If the article were about changes to retirement, work hours, salary, medical co-pay or tenure would they be silent?  

They should be out front on this issue but I don't see any participation or suggestions. Why?

A Bump in The Road

There was a commentary in the Journal today, May 27,2009 by Charles Chieppo and Joseph Giglio, "In Mass., user fees best way to pay for roads." In it, the authors advocate that people who use roads the most should pay the most for them and they recommend that we use electronic technology to charge people accordingly.

The authors write, "When it comes to roads, most agree that how much you pay should be commensurate with the benefits you derive."

I'm no professor or professional public policy writer but I do have some serious questions about their assumptions and suggestions.

For example, if the Johnson family drives every Sunday from Boston to Cranston to visit their elderly grandmother Mabel, exactly who benefits the most from the use of the roads, grandma Mabel or the Johnsons?

When the trucker delivers his load of fresh produce to the market is he the beneficiary of good roads or is it the market owner, or is it we the consumers, who benefit the most? It's pretty clear to me that good roads benefit everyone, just as do efficient police protection and fire protection and public education.

This is a poorly thought out idea, which is in fact, just another way to provide more revenue for cash strapped states. I agree that the revenue problem is serious and needs to be solved but let's not delude ourselves by pretending that this suggestion is in some way a fairness issue. It isn't.

There are those who see government as a necessary evil and others who see government as the answer to our problems. It is neither and it is both. Our task is to define, as carefully and precisely as possible, what role government should play in our lives.

Maintenance of public roadways and infrastructure is one of those roles and should be paid for with public funds. Our challenge is to guarantee that government spends our money wisely and with greater care and respect for the taxpayer.

Tax Exempt Property 101

There are many worthy organizations and businesses that do good works; churches, hospitals, universities and colleges and charitable organizations, all provide humane and important services and are rewarded with tax exempt status.

In such cases the property owned by these organizations and used in the performance of their routine functions are not taxed. Most agree that it is only right to provide support for these worthy organizations and the other businesses and residents, through their property taxes, pay the share of the tax exempts who also receive benefits such as road maintenance, fire and police protection, maintenance of public spaces etc.

Communities obviously vary in population, infrastructure, size, and industrial density.    Because of this, some communities are more attractive to tax exempt organizations. On July 21, 2008, Providence City Council President Peter Mancini, in a special section to the Providence Business News said "We’re almost at 50 percent tax-exempt real estate". This means that just 50% of the property owners are paying 100% of the tax levy - their portion and the portion of the tax exempts.

This is clearly unjust and unfair to the property owners of Providence and other towns with the larger percentages of tax exempt property.

One approach would be to charge fees to various organizations but it will produce ill will and resistance and some groups will always feel they have been unfairly and unreasonably taxed. There is a lot of push back to Mayor Cicillini's efforts to authorize new local taxes on private colleges, universities and hospitals.

And if the extra revenue is used to fill holes in the budget instead of being used to bring relief to beleaguered tax payers, they too will feel betrayed. This piecemeal approach fails to deal with the  underlying problem of unfair distribution of tax burdens.

It is for this reason that the following plan is offered for consideration.

The General Assembly shall determine the *percentage of tax exempt property that any community will be required to support.  For simplicity let's assume that percentage is 10%.  In this case the remaining 90% of the community will pay the 10% tax exempts' share, who pay nothing.

As the percentage of tax exempts increases they will begin to share in funding of the tax levy through a tax on their property according to the following simple formula:  Their property tax shall be a percentage of the standard property tax equal to the difference between the percentage of tax exempt property in the community and the 10% allowed by law.

For example, should a community actually have 16% tax exempt property each tax exempt property will be taxed 6% (16% minus 10%) of the normal tax on said property.  As the percentage of tax exempts increases so shall their contribution to the tax levy. If, as in Providence, the percentage reaches 50%, the tax exempts would pay 40% of the normal property tax an their property (50% minus 10%).

*The actual numbers used shall be determined by careful analysis so as not to be unreasonable to any of the involved parties while standardizing the process for all. The General Assembly can also provide for different rates depending on the nature of the organizations. Some might even remain tax free.

Wouldn't it be better to have a known and transparent system rather than what we have now, individual mayors and town councils working out a variety of different arrangements of PILOTS (payments in lieu of taxes) that vary from town to town, inconsistent and unpredictable? 

The taxes would be levied in a manner that is sensitive to the value tax exempt organizations bring to a community while not unfairly burdening others whose property is not tax exempt.

Maybe It's Just Me