Why Romney was right about corporations

Jon Huntsman, 2012’s resident civility candidate, has officially started to mention front runner Mitt Romney by name on the campaign trail. In a radio interview with WKXL’s Chris Ryan set to air on Monday, Huntsman spoke bluntly about the man some say is his toughest competition.


When asked to discuss Romney’s “hypothetical answer” at Friday’s debate on how he would deal with the nation’s debt, Huntsman told Ryan, “This is not a time for theoretical answers or theoretical discussions, you live in the real world, you have to deal with the economic realities.”


“This was a time when leadership mattered,” he continued. “When you need to stand up, you take your position, you defend your position, you run a little risk in taking that position, you don’t wait until the very end as governor Romney did, you put your finger to the wind and basically come down on the safe side politically, I just don’t think that’s leadership. If you’re going to run for president of the United States, you show some leadership, the presidency is about exerting leadership, and if you’re not willing to show leadership on something as important as the debt ceiling, it begs the question, “when are you going to show some leadership?


But his statement unintentionally hit at another, underexamined fact of American life: Corporations are people. That's at least in the opinion of the Supreme Court when it comes to certain legal issues. This is the doctrine known as "corporate personhood" that came into play in the Citizens United case in 2010 that gutted some important corporate campaign finance restrictions.


To learn more about the issue, I spoke with David Cobb, an attorney and the 2004 Green Party candidate for president. Cobb is now a spokesperson for Move to Amend, a coalition that advocates amending the Constitution to end the doctrine of corporate personhood.


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.


Where did this legal doctrine come from?


Legal personhood means that you can claim and assert constitutional rights. Remember that the Constitution does not create rights, it recognizes inherent, inalienable rights. That means if a legislative decision -- whether at the state, local or federal level -- infringes upon your rights, like the right to free speech or assembly, the government's action is illegitimate and you as an individual should be able to go into court and argue that this law is an illegitimate exercise of governmental power.


The court has said in most instances now corporations should be treated as persons with constitutional rights. So now local, state and even federal laws that are attempting to control corporate harm and abuse can actually be challenged in court, and often are. Many laws have been overturned, including environmental protection laws, worker safety laws, and laws protecting consumers. In a nutshell, when a corporation can claim it is a person with constitutional rights, it means their lawyers can go into court and overturn democratically enacted laws.


Was there a single case in which this idea was established?


The first time it was discussed was in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railway in 1886; there have been a slew of other cases since then. The doctrine of corporate personhood really started to gain traction in the late 1970s, and the current court is exacerbating it even more. 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.


Most recently -- and I would say most egregiously -- the decision of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturned the McCain-Feingold law, which was an attempt to protect the integrity of our elections. The McCain-Feingold law was very anemic to begin with, but the court said the law was treating wealthy people and corporations as an "oppressed minority" and therefore overturned a democratically enacted law. The case was decided on free speech grounds.


Another one is Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee from 1933, where the court overturned a law attempting to favor local merchants over chain stores. The law provided for a different tax structure for local, independently owned businesses versus corporate franchise businesses. The court overturned that, arguing that the law violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.


A corporation has not yet been able to cast a ballot. But I would argue they do not need to cast a ballot when they control the political expenditures to the extent that they drown out the voice of ordinary people.


It would entrench that money is not speech, and that only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights. It would allow local, state and federal government to pass any number of laws. It's saying that we would be able to engage in a proper political debate about the role of not only corporations but also how our society operates. For example, we could theoretically prohibit all political activity by corporations, including lobbying and donations. These activities are currently legal because corporate personhood protects them under the First Amendment. Also we could prevent corporate mergers.

Romney worth up to $264 million; earned up to $68,000 per speech before campaign

Mitt Romney may not be in Ames, Iowa, today for the Straw Poll but he's not immune to attacks from his competitors, especially those from Bill Burton, former White House spokesman who is now with the pro-Obama PAC "PrioritiesUSA," and dedicated an entire memo to the GOP contender this morning.


Burton, in an e-mail blast earlier titled "Romney's artificially low expectations in Ames," railed against Romney for claiming that he's not participating in this year's Straw Poll. Burton writes, "The Romney spin that they aren't competing or even concerned about the results in Iowa doesn't stand up to the facts."


"Romney has enlisted a string of high-profile Iowa endorsers, leads public polling in Iowa and is sitting on $13 million in campaign cash, not counting his vast personal fortune," said Burton. "He participated in the Iowa debate on Thursday, his campaign touted the 10,000 Iowans that joined his tele-town hall, and his campaign is quietly pushing people to attend Ames."


The Romney campaign pushed back on Burton's remarks, with spokeswoman Andrea Saul telling ABC News, "President Obama should spend more time worrying about creating jobs for the millions of Americans out of work, instead of spreading false information about Mitt Romney."


The campaign also noted to ABC News that despite allegations that suggest otherwise, the Romney campaign has not spent a dime on the Iowa Straw Poll this year. No money has been put toward luring voters to Ames or for any ads surrounding the event, according to the campaign.


A source close to the Romney campaign told ABC News that despite allegations, the Romney campaign has not spent a dime on the Iowa Straw Poll this year.


Romney himself has said repeatedly that his decision not to participate in the Iowa Straw Poll -- or any straw polls this election cycle -- is because he wants to focus his money and time on getting the support of actual delegates.


The numbers underscore an issue that poses both a benefit and a challenge for the former Massachusetts governor, who points to his business experience as evidence of his ability to lead the country.


But Romney, who grew up in a wealthy family before expanding his fortunes at the Bain Capital equity firm, also has struggled to portray himself as a candidate in touch with the lives of regular voters.


At an Iowa appearance this week, Romney sparred with hecklers urging him to raise corporate taxes by responding: “Corporations are people, my friend.” GOP challenger Tim Pawlenty also made light of Romney’s wealth during a Thursday night debate in a quip about mowing his lawn.


Romney is far richer than most, if not all, of his presidential rivals. President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama reported assets between $2.8 million and $11.8 million in 2010. The only other candidate who might exceed Romney in personal wealth, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr., has yet to file a disclosure.


In addition to his sprawling investments, Romney was paid more than $374,000 for nine speeches in 2010 and 2011, including a speech at Clark Consulting in Half Moon Bay, Calif., for $66,000 and two appearances worth $68,000 each for Goldentree Asset Management and the International Franchise Association.


His most recent reported speech, for Barclay’s Bank in Washington, made him $42,500 in February, as he was preparing for the start of his presidential campaign, the records show.


Romney also owns horses worth up to $500,000 through a limited-liability company; one of them won a prize of less than $201, the report shows.


The financial disclosures — which are expressed in broad ranges rather than precise numbers — suggest that Romney could be worth as little as $85 million or as much as $264 million. His campaign said that “a more accurate range” is between $190 million to $250 million.


Campaign officials said the holdings of Romney and his wife, Ann, are managed in a blind trust administered by an attorney at Ropes & Gray in Boston, a firm long tied to the Republican candidate and his inner circle. “They do not control the investment of these assets,” said campaign spokeswoman Gail Gitcho.


Romney’s investments span a broad spectrum of the global economy, including energy, finance, health care, industrial firms and telecommunications and high technology, the records show.


His assets are held in more than 160 funds controlled by a variety of major investment firms, including BNP Paribas, Goldman Sachs, Rabobank Nederland and Bain Capital. Romney also reported up to $500,000 in Ford Motor Co. stock and up to $250,000 in Marriott International.

Mystery Mitt Romney donor comes forward

In a move aimed at tamping down a mounting controversy over secret money in presidential politics, a political committee backing Mitt Romney Saturday publicly identified a former Bain Capital managing director as the source of a mysterious $1 million contribution to its coffers.

Restore Our Future, the pro-Romney committee, said that Edward W. Conard, who was for years associated with Bain Capital, the huge investment firm that Romney once headed, was the figure behind an obscure company called “W Spann LLC” that was listed as donating $1 million to the group last spring. Conard has continued to list his affiliation with Bain Capital when making sizeable campaign contributions in recent years even though a Bain Capital spokesman said he retired from the firm in 2007.

The disclosure of Conard’s identity, first reported by Politico, would appear to solve a Washington mystery that has swirled for days after NBC News reported this week on the murky origins of W Spann LLC : The company was formed in Delaware in March, made its contribution in April, and then dissolved in July, leaving no paper trail as to who its owners were — or even where it was located.

But campaign watchdog groups said Saturday that they will continue to press for a Justice Department investigation into the contribution, saying that unless such a probe is conducted, it will open the door for other donors to conceal their campaign contributions through shadowy "pop up" corporate fronts.

In a statement Conard said, "I am the individual who formed and funded W Spann LLC. I authorized W Spann LLC’s contribution to Restore Our Future PAC.

"I did so after consulting prominent legal counsel regarding the transaction, and based on my understanding that the contribution would comply with applicable laws," he said. "To address questions raised by the media concerning the contribution, I will request that Restore Our Future PAC amend its public reports to disclose me as the donor associated with this contribution."

The LLC had been registered to a Madison Avenue address in Manhattan that was the same building occupied by Bain, sparking more of the mystery surrounding Spann. Sources familiar with the situation said Conard retired from Bain in 2007, but still maintains an office of his own at that Madison Avenue address.

Conard came forward as criticism from campaign watchdogs and Democrats were gathering steam, and there was an official complaint with the FEC, as well as with the Justice Department, filed by a nonpartisan group.

The contribution was first reported by POLITICO's Jonathan Martin and Ken Vogel on Sunday. NBC's Michael Isikoff reported earlier this week that Spann was formed in March and dissolved less than four months later, raising questions about the purpose of the company.

It wasn't immediately clear why Conard chose to go the anonymous donation route.

Based on his donation history and his past with Romney, at first glance there may be less there than meets the eye in terms of a hidden political agenda. Conard has no major history as a Republican donor, and is not a known name within bundler circles.

He's made a few donations to the Republican National Committee, and contributed to George W. Bush's and Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown's campaigns, but the overwhelming majority of his donations have been to Romney and his two PACS, Commonwealth PAC and Free and Strong America.

He is among a group of Romney supporters who has donated to the network of the state-based versions of the PACs, which can have higher contribution limits.