“Person means a natural person, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, business trust, joint stock company, trust, unincorporated business association, joint venture, governmental entity, or other organization.”
That is from the definitions section of a commercial agreement I happened to be reading today for a consulting assignment. That type of definition appears in millions of commercial contracts–purchase agreements, merger agreements, loan agreements, leases, licenses, you name it.
In the commercial world, among business lawyers and clients, it is commonly assumed that whenever we reference persons we mean to include every form of organization people have created. That familiar usage might make the holdings in cases such as Holly Hobby or Citizens United seem natural, with corporations having many of the same rights and duties as people have.
On the other hand, we use the term this way in the business context where the issues being addressed concern commercial obligations and powers, liabilities and indemnities and purchases and sales–not free speech or free exercise of religion. Moreover, the presence of such definitions in these agreements, despite ubiquity, underscores that it is more natural for persons to be seen only as natural persons, not organizations.
Hard liners on both sides of debates about corporate rights and duties show stupidity, arrogance, or mendacity when declaring either, on the right, “of course corporations are persons” or, on the left, “of course corporations are not persons.” In fact, organizations are not natural persons. But for some purposes, they should be treated as natural persons are and for others they should not. (See here for some additional thoughts on Hobby Lobby drawing on the example of Berkshire Hathaway.)
Context is key and hard liners tend to forget context. In the talk these days about these two SCOTUS cases, it looks as if the Divided States of America is increasingly peopled by hard liners. Alas, that’s not something to celebrate this Fourth of July.