In their battle against business, one tactic of activists is to challenge the legal parameters within which corporations operate.
In reading about this tactical approach, I came across an article entitled “Paradigm Shift: Challenging Corporate Authority” and written by Paul Cienfuegos. This article appears in a book entitled The Global Activist’s Manual, edited by Mike Prokosch and Laura Raymond. On the first page of the article, author Paul discusses how early Americans, unlike modern Americans, understood that a corporation was an artificial entity, one created by law and people. He states that in 1834 the Pennsylvania legislature declared a corporation as a “creature of the law” and that it should be shaped “for any purpose that the Legislature may deem most conducive to the common good.”
This position encompasses very astute insights by Paul. He makes the distinction between a corporation and a human. The former being manmade, while the latter being a creation of the Almighty. The corporation being manmade should then be responsible to those who created it, which he equates with the people of the state where the corporation was formed. Excellent point.
Paul continues, “People understood that they had a civic responsibility not to create artificial entities that could harm the body politic, interfere with the mechanisms of self-governance, and assault their sovereignty.” Again, all excellent points which I take as Paul saying that the corporation should be responsive to the people who, through their state legislature, created the corporation. Sound reasoning and the basis of a tactic which can be used in the never-ending battle between activists and business corporations.
Activists would adopt this tactic and take it into the legal arena when battling business corporations. The activists’ tactic would be to force the legislatures to make business corporations more responsive to the people, who created the corporation in the first place. Yes, again sound reasoning and brilliant thinking.
But brilliance can cut both ways and payback is always a bitch.
Businesses are not the only organizations that are formed under state corporation law. NGO and activist organizations are also formed under the corporate statutes of a state. Can anyone reasonably, semantically, and validly state that NGO and activist corporations do not “harm the body politic” or “interfere with the mechanisms of self-governance” or assault the sovereignty of the people?
Tactics can be turned around.
NGOs and activist corporations benefit from the limited liability protection of state corporation laws. The people of the state have afforded those organizations that privilege. In return the people of a state should expect that their interests should be represented as the “common good.” But no one elects NGOs or activists to act in the peoples’ interest. NGO and activist corporations decide on their own what the “common good” should be. Through the non-democratic processes under which NGO and activist corporations operate, these organizations by definition “harm the body politic,” and “interfere with the mechanisms of self-governance,” and assault the sovereignty of the people.
When pursuing or recommending a tactic, perhaps its best to assess
Continue reading Activism: Harm to the Body Politic?
