Should Corporations Be Allowed to Vote in Political Elections?

The concept of a corporation being treated as a legal person with rights and responsibilities, especially in a political context, is often misinterpreted and misunderstood. This article delves into whether corporations should be allowed to vote in political elections, highlighting the ethical and practical implications.

Myth vs. Reality - The Corporation as a Legal Person

Many people mistakenly believe that corporations are essentially equivalent to legal persons with the same rights as individual citizens. This is a common misconception fueled by debates and policies that often exclude corporations from contributing fully to societal progress. In reality, a corporation is a legal fiction, a construct defined by legislation and legal documents rather than an organic entity with the capacity to think, will, or act autonomously.

A Legal Fiction

A corporation is merely a legal entity, granted certain rights and protections through legislations and constitutions. It has no physical brain, hands, or circulatory system. Its charter, which defines its purpose, does not include political or social views. Just as a person in a coma has no will or capacity to act, a corporation’s actions are dictated by the individuals within it, not by an independent entity with a mind and will of its own.

Corporate Personhood and Ethical Misalignments

The notion of corporate personhood is problematic from an ethical standpoint. When a corporation’s CEO uses corporate funds to support a political cause, it can be seen as an abuse of power. This is akin to a caretaker of a coma patient taking funds from the patient's wallet to support a political candidate, which is a clear case of theft. Similarly, if the caretaker fills out the patient’s absentee ballot, it would be a criminal act.

Even individuals working in corporations, such as the CEO or an employee in the mailroom, do not have the authority to use corporate resources for political purposes without explicit permission. The idea that the CEO, President, or Board of Directors is the "brain" of the corporation is unjustified. These individuals are employees, and any political actions they take are subject to corporate governance and ethical standards.

Implications of Allowing Corporations to Vote

Allowing corporations to vote in political elections would have significant implications. If large corporations like Walmart or Apple were to vote, the political landscape would be dramatically altered. The financial and symbolic power of these corporations could sway elections or influence legislation in ways that might not align with the broader public interest.

Financial Influence

Large corporations have considerable financial resources that can be used to support political candidates and causes through campaign contributions, lobbying efforts, and other forms of political spending. If allowed to vote, these corporations would have a direct say in how these funds are deployed, potentially leading to conflicts of interest and a further erosion of public trust in the political process.

Amplifying Corporate Interests

Allowing corporations to vote would likely result in policies that favor their specific business interests. For example, a corporation like Apple, which relies heavily on innovation and intellectual property, might support policies that protect these assets. Meanwhile, Walmart, a company focused on retail and supply chain efficiency, might advocate for policies that benefit its distribution and supply chain operations. Such a scenario could lead to policies that disproportionately benefit corporate owners and stakeholders at the expense of the general public.

Ethical and Social Ramifications

The ethical implications of allowing corporations to vote are profound. It challenges the fundamental principles of democracy, which should be based on the representation and interests of individual citizens. If corporations can vote, the voice of individual citizens would be diluted, and the principle of one person, one vote would be eroded.

Alternative Solutions

Instead of allowing corporations to vote, a more sustainable approach would be to ensure that political contributions and spending are transparent and subject to strict regulations. This would help prevent corrupt and undue influence by corporations on the political process. Public funding of elections, for instance, could provide a more equitable and stable funding mechanism for political campaigns, reducing the disproportionate influence of wealthy individuals and corporations.

Conclusion

The concept of corporate personhood is misconstrued and can lead to serious ethical and practical challenges. Allowing corporations to vote in political elections would exacerbate these issues, undermining the principles of democracy and ethical governance. It is crucial to maintain the distinction between individuals and corporations and ensure that the political process remains fair and transparent.