Licking says corporations don't have "people" rights
By Tom DiStefano, CLARION NEWS Writer
This article is reprinted with permission from the source.

LICKING TWP. - Licking Township March 12 became the second municipality in the United States to declare that corporations do not have the constitutional rights of people.

Supervisors voted unanimously to adopt what is being called the "anti-corporate personhood" ordinance, developed by the Community Environmental and Legal Defense Fund, based in Chambersburg. The ordinance is officially titled the "Corporate Rights Elimination and Self-Government Ordinance."

In December 2002, Porter Township became the first municipality in the nation to adopt such an ordinance

The bulk of the text in Licking Township.s three-page ordinance explains the basis for the authority to adopt the ordinance and why the ordinance is needed.

The specific purpose of the ordinance is a single sentence: "to eliminate the purported constitutional rights of corporations in order to remedy the harms that corporations may cause to the people of Licking Township by exercise of such rights."

And the meat of the ordinance is two short "statements of law." The first, also included in Porter Township.s ordinance, is that corporations will not be considered "persons" protected by the Pennsylvania and U.S. constitutions.

The second statement, only in the Licking Township ordinance, adds that corporations shall not be protected by the Commerce Clause and the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and a section of the state constitution regarding contracts.

On a practical, immediate level, the ordinance is about the township's ability to monitor and regulate the use of sewage sludge as fertilizer.

Licking, Porter, and several other local townships in recent months have adopted ordinances requiring that projects to spread sewage sludge on land register with the township and pay fees enabling those townships to inspect the site and test the sludge used to insure the projects are obeying state regulations on sewage sludge.

Tom Linzey of CELDF said the corporate personhood ordinance was first developed in response to a case now in federal court in which the Synagro Corp., a sludge application and management firm, challenged a sludge ordinance adopted by Rush Township, Clearfield County, claiming the corporation.s rights were violated.

Licking Township supervisor Mik Robertson explained the ordinance in detail to a half-dozen citizens at the township meeting, emphasizing the new ordinance will not interfere "with any business doing business under the laws of Pennsylvania or the U.S."

"It's saying corporations can't claim the rights of an individual," Robertson said. "It does not affect the ability to conduct business."

Nor does the ordinance have any impact on the protections against personal liability that corporations provide their owners, Robertson said.

A major reason for incorporating a business is so that the owners will not be held personally and financially responsible for the actions of the business.

Un-incorporated businesses, such as sole proprietorships, are not affected by the ordinance at all, Robertson noted.

"It closes up the loopholes," added supervisor Tim Larkin.

Robertson used an example apparently inspired by a current controversy in Clarion Township.

If a corporation that operates strip clubs wants to open such a club in Licking Township and says it has the right to do so under the constitutional guarantee of free speech and expression, Robertson said, "we could say - you don't have that right in Licking Township."

If a sole proprietor opened such a club, however, then that proprietor would have the constitutional right to operate.

Clarion Township legal counsel Bill Strong has issued an opinion that Clarion Township cannot enforce a ban on clubs with nude dancing, based on a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that nude dancing is protected by the state constitution's guarantee of the right to free expression. A "gentleman's club" opened last month just north of Mechanicsville.

"What we are looking for is individual liberty and local control," Robertson said.

That sentiment is reflected in some of the paragraphs outlining the general purpose of the ordinance.

Section 3, paragraph 8 states: "Buttressed by these constitutional rights, corporate wealth enables corporations to wield the coercive force of law to overpower citizens and communities, thus infringing upon or denying the people's exercise of their constitutional rights."

And Section 3, Paragraph 11 states the ordinance is needed because: "The ability of the elected officials of Licking Township to protect the health, safety and welfare of township residents can be infringed upon or denied by the wielding of constitutional rights by corporations."

John Elliot asked if the ordinance would affect "the right to earn a living" of a farm set up as a corporation.

"Broadly, it would," said Robertson. "Individuals have rights, corporations don't."

A farmer that is a sole proprietor could claim the right to make a living, but would also have personal responsibility and liability for the farm.s operations, Robertson said.

"With corporations, there is no personal responsibility," Robertson noted.

Corporations would not have constitutional rights under the ordinance, and while this would limit the arguments a corporation could make in a court case, they could still argue other points of law, Robertson said, and it would not affect a corporations ability to operate a business under state and federal statutes.

"I don't think anyone can interpret this ordinance as regulatory on business," Robertson said.

He pointed out that there is no legislation giving corporations constitutional rights; they were established by court decisions.

Robertson issued a warning about the anti-corporate personhood ordinance.

"It might be a lightning rod for threatened or actual legal action, so take that into consideration," Robertson told fellow supervisors before the vote to adopt. "But I think it is very defensible."

Linzey told the Clarion News his organization is committed to defending, free of charge, any municipality with an anti-corporate personhood ordinance should that ordinance be challenged.

When Robertson asked if supervisors were ready to vote on the ordinance, Larkin asked for a few minutes to read over the document.

"It sounds right," supervisor Ray Bailey said of the ordinance. "Just so it doesn't give people the wrong idea."

After a 10-minute break while Larkin and Bailey read over the ordinance, Larkin moved to adopt it and Bailey seconded. The vote in favor was unanimous.