Corporate Personhood: to be or not to be

Corporate Personhood to be or not to be. Well, it unfortunately may soon depend on the context.

Corporate Personhood: Corporations want to be considered people/individuals (corporate personhood) only when it benefits them.

When does it pay to be a cry Corporate Personhood? Political campaign contributions, of course!

But when does it not good to exclaim a claim of Corporate Personhood? When they are being sued/taken to court! When they consider themselves to be “transnational” and thus are not subject to one nation’s laws, especially when they have done something very naughty such as acts of terrorism, violence, coercion, fraud, etc. And, the American favorite, when it's time to pay taxes!

The most recent kerfluffle is before the U.S. Supreme Court in the form of the case of Kiobel v. Shell. In summary, "the case, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, arises out of allegations of Shell's complicity in torture and extrajudicial killing in Nigeria during the 1990s" of  individuals opposed to the actions or policies of Shell.  Essentially, “Shell's lawyers argue to our nation's highest court that companies should get to have it both ways: rights when it benefits them, but no responsibilities for abuse.”

It seems that the Conservative majority on the Supreme Court may decide in favor of the corporations. I suppose it's about good ole boy politics, not justice. 

Arvin Ganesan puts it very well: "The Supreme Court's decision in the Kiobel case could be a watershed moment for corporate accountability. If it blocks the plaintiffs' suit, it will send a disturbing message that multinational corporations do not have to pay a price for their involvement in torture, unlawful killings and other violations of the law of nations. Corporations, like pirates of old, should not be able to flout firmly established and universal legal norms with no real prospect of facing justice."