Even in big super-profitable companies, employees commit crimes for company profits. Why would they do that? Isn’t the company making enough money already? Dumb question. There is no such thing as enough.

Bribes. Phony accounting. Furtive disposal of toxic waste. Ignoring workplace safety. Insider trading. Greenwashing. Lying to congress. Threatening whistle-blowers. Just a few of many.

Those caught, at least sometimes, are charged and prosecuted. If due process finds them guilty, punishment follows. This legal mechanism we all understand and accept: the alleged bad guys should have their day in court, and if the evidence is there, pay the price.

But that’s only step one. Once the employee is convicted, we must also punish the company. This should occur even if the actions of the individual are taken on his own initiative, and not directed by a superior within the company or by any other employee or agent of the company.

Such punishment should occur even if the offending employee is not an executive or a decision-maker within the company. Sanctions should be applied even if the original perpetrator of the crime is an entry- level employee or a new-hire.

Punishing the individual deters him from further criminality, the intended effect. But if punishment does not reach beyond individuals, the employer has no incentive to hire better people.

We might compare two competing companies. If company A guards against criminal employee behavior and its competitor B does not, then in the absence of penalties, company B with the looser standards has a competitive advantage.

Company B is now more likely to gain market share over time, with corresponding greater odds of survival in the corporate arena. Although the offending employee may be gone, company B has no reason to hire an honest replacement. One evildoer can thus easily replace another.

Note it is not necessary for a personnel department to say “let’s hire some crooks, because we know we can get away with it”. Human resources staff would be justly offended by this suggestion. Rather it is a matter of what does not occur. If there is no penalty for hiring people likely to commit a crime, then there is no incentive to apply safeguards making their hiring less likely.

To disrupt this pattern, therefore, when employees break the law for the sake of the corporation, the company must also be penalized. Automatically.

Can we do this in the current era of corporate privilege? No, we cannot. Corps, though not human, currently enjoy constitutional protection which prevents application of such penalties. The Founders did not intend this.

But in the post-corporate personhood era, which many dedicated citizens are working hard to make a reality, we will gain control over these now unaccountable organizations and pass laws enabling these kinds of penalties. Companies will thereby be incentivized to hire more honest folks.

Corporations are not, and never have been “people.” Once corporate personhood is eliminated, rights that have been mistakenly provided to them will be removed. They will still get due process of course. We are not returning to the wild west. But due process for corporations does not have to be the same as due process for bona-fide human citizens.

Punishment of the employee will then be followed by punishment of the corp. Note that we are not suggesting the reverse: that employees should be automatically penalized for corporate wrongdoing. That would not be possible or desirable whether corporations are considered persons or not.

When the company is held liable, but no individual employee crime can be identified, then no person can or should be punished. Eliminating corporate personhood does not loosen the standards for criminal prosecution of people. Corporations are not people, but people are still people.

When the company is punished, it should hurt. Symbolic punishment is useless. If you could buy yourself out of a murder conviction for pocket change, it wouldn’t be much of a deterrent. The same principle applies here. For crimes of sufficient gravity, therefore, painful punishment will be delivered. Currently, companies are often fined for various infractions, but the amounts are usually small enough to be regarded as incidental business expenses.

For minor crimes, that’s fine. But for the really bad stuff, we will get the company’s attention. Increased fines will be proportional to the company’s prosperity. If two companies (or their employees) commit the same crime, the larger of the two companies will pay the larger fine.

What about equal punishment for equal crimes? We are not abandoning that principle. We are just measuring the severity of punishment in pain instead of dollars. Different size companies will pay different amounts for the same crime, but the pain, or economic suffering they experience will be the same.

Remember the following. In fact, write it on your wall:

If a fine doesn’t tank the stock price, its a slap on the wrist.

Sometimes a company is fined, and the stock price actually rises. It is a stock-holder sigh of relief that the problem is over. This should never happen.

There are cases, however, when the behavior of the company is so egregious that no fine is sufficient, and the company must be dissolved. Coming up: “The Execution of Corporations.”

The post Crime, Punishment and Prevention appeared first on The DNA of Corporations.

For example, if somewhere in Africa more slow antelopes are eaten by lions than fast antelopes, then more fast antelopes will survive to produce baby antelopes. Over generations, antelopes will get faster. In this case, the trait of speed is said to be “selected for”. This is survival of the fittest.

Darwin observed that finches in the Galapagos islands had different shaped beaks depending on which particular island they lived. The shapes and sizes, and specific locations of seeds and insects and other finch food items varied from place to place, and, over time, finch beaks changed to match.

Were Darwin alive today, he would observe a similar process occurring within large corporations. They likewise experience evolution, natural selection, adaptation and survival of the fittest.

Details differ of course. Unlike animals, corporations do not have generations nor do they grow old and die. They do however have behaviors that could help or hurt their money-making ability and thereby affect their survival. These behaviors can change over time and are thus subject to evolutionary pressures.

Corps are non-human, but are run by humans. Company decisions are human-made. Decisions can be good, bad, or on occasion fatal for the company. These human decision-makers can learn from their mistakes, enhancing the fortune of the company and themselves. Or they can fail to learn, causing the company to suffer loss and putting their own jobs in peril. Either way, this learning process drives natural selection in the corporate realm.

Here are some common corporate behaviors:

• Produces products desirable to buyers
• Modifies its product line as consumer demand changes
• Undersells competitors
• Has enough money to undercut a competitor’s prices, even taking a loss, until the competitor goes out of business.
• Disposes of wastes more cheaply than others, sometimes surreptitiously, thereby lowering the cost and thus the price of its products.
• Makes false, misleading or incomplete financial statements, making it easier to borrow money, and potentially increasing stock price.
• Fools consumers and regulators about the components of their products, making them appear more effective or less dangerous than they really are.
• Pays bribes to government or corporate buyers.
• Persuades governments of third-world countries to use their armies to suppress local resistance to their operations.

Some of these are respected business practices and some are criminal acts, but all are potential money-makers and so play roles in corporate evolution.

Suppose company A and company B compete by producing similar products.

If company A is better at number 1 in the list above (more desirable products) than company B, then A has the advantage. But what if company A is better at number 7 (false advertising)? Same result. As long as company A doesn’t get caught, it gains advantage and crime pays.

A crime requires a human to commit it, but of the many humans available to perform a particular task, whom does the company choose?

Over time, the selection process works inside corporate hierarchies as it does in nature. Companies unwilling or incapable of committing a crime, that is, companies who fail to employ individuals who are willing to participate in the crime, will have a competitive disadvantage. These companies are the slow antelopes.

This internal pressure pushes a company toward criminal behavior. Corporations don’t have feelings, and thus cannot experience guilt or shame, but humans do. Among the humans available for the job where a crime could be committed, there is a range of potential for that guilt and shame. Those who are less likely to have regrets and thus more willing to commit the crime that will increase company fortunes, will be the ones selected for.

Note we are not talking about conspiracies or secret plots, or a cabal of corporate decision-makers. Those exist, but this isn’t that. This is a natural automatic process, inherent to the nature of corporations, occurring in the background, informing all corporate activity.

To summarize: if companies can get away with committing illegal acts, then companies who refuse to do so will have less business success then their less principled competitors.

So the adaptation that occurs in plants and animals also occurs in corporations. When the environment changes, organisms, struggling to survive, change in any manner available to them. In the corporate realm it is individual employee decision-making that undergoes the change. This process goes unnoticed by the employees. They may recognize misbehavior in themselves and others, but are oblivious to the forces that lead to its inevitability.

Those who participated in the Enron energy price-fixing fiasco in the early 2000’s or in the Wells-Fargo account fraud scandal a decade later certainly knew they were up to no good. But they likely weren’t pondering the nuances of corporate behavior. Likewise, the antelope sprinting across the savanna, outrunning those shaggy would-be diners, is escaping death. Though unfamiliar with the internal spiritual lives of antelopes, I’m pretty sure that in this situation, survival is the only thought.

So corporations have environments, just like plants and animals do. Corporations change over time to adapt do their environments, just like plants and animals do.

When corporate misbehavior goes unpunished, it continues. But if misdeeds are routinely discovered and punished, causing the company financial distress, change occurs. This is an alteration to the companies’ environment, and the organism, ie the company, responds to protect itself.

Anticipating fines or worse, corporations will more carefully screen potential employees and monitor behavior of existing ones. This increases the likelihood that employees will follow the rules, and be less likely to cause the company loss. This is adaptation.

Therefore, if we citizens, as represented by our government, would like to prevent undesirable corporate behavior, then we must be willing to make the rules strict and clear, and deliver punishment swift and sure. Natural selection in the corporate realm will do the rest.

But remember: when it comes to policy-making, the corps have a seat at the table, and they talk big. They will resist rule changes and enforcement with all the tools at their disposal. Early in America, corps were kept out of politics, but they wormed their way in. You of course, as a citizen, have a seat at the table too, but yours is in the kiddy section.

Once we have eliminated corporate personhood, the balance of power between flesh and blood citizens and corporations will change. Corporate misbehavior will be monitored and sanctioned. It’s fine to start, operate, invest in or be employed by a company and make money. Even lots of money. Have a ball. But activities harmful to the general public will be proscribed. See movetoamend.org for more.

The post Animal Fears appeared first on The DNA of Corporations.

But that’s just the first level. Next is “illegal dumping”. A household or small business might want to bypass the expense and inconvenience of waste disposal. If you have more trash than your weekly pickup guys can handle, there are legitimate ways of getting rid of it. You might take it to the dump and pay a fee. You might pay someone to haul it away.

But if the expense is too much, or that dreary ride through traffic to the bad side of town just isn’t for you, then what? Why not just leave it on the side of the road in the middle of the night?

That’s what happened when you see an oddly placed trash bag or piece of furniture while driving down the road. If you live in a nice neighborhood and have never seen this, do a web search on “illegal dumping”, and select “images”.

But an old refrigerator or couch is still amateur hour. To play the CCPP game like a pro, truly large quantities of waste are required — quantities beyond what most individuals are capable of generating, but easy for a large corporation. For example, a tire company.

Occasionally you read a news story about a tire pile — old discarded “waste tires” — that has become a tourist attraction. It may contain millions of tires. It may be burning. You think to yourself, “How cool is that? Maybe I’ll check it out on a road trip someday.”

We owe the CCPP terminology to the late professor Garrett James Hardin of the University of California, Santa Barbara. It means “Commonize the Cost and Privatize the Profit”. He elaborates in his 1985 Book “Filters Against Folly”. He also wrote the famous article in the December 13, 1968 issue of Science Magazine “The Tragedy of the Commons”, where we learn how easy it is to turn a natural wonder into desolation.

Since we don’t often hear of tire piles, you might assume that such a newsworthy one is unique, or at least uncommon.

Unfortunately, you would be mistaken. There are so many old tires accumulating across the country that states need documented tire pile policies. There are thousands of these piles, some containing millions of tires. They are hazardous. A tire’s shape is perfect for holding water, thereby becoming a miniature mosquito breeding pond.

And when a large pile catches fire, it can burn for weeks or months (yes!) polluting the air and ground. They can ignite nearby structures, even start forest fires. The smoke is really gross. States have laws regulating the storage and cleanup of these piles. Our representatives are working hard to protect you from tire danger. Dealing with waste tires is expensive and we pay for it.

“Commonize the cost”, or as we sometimes hear “Socialize the cost” means the community pays cleanup costs. Yep, you heard that right. When it comes to cleaning up old tires, we have socialism. Sorry.

The community can be a city, a state, a country, or the whole world. This includes you. Just think of money migrating from your pocket into a tire-cleanup fund.

“Privatize the profits” means that all the profits go to the company, and none go to the community that paid for cleanup. As a tire maker, I would like to sell the tire, take my profit, and never have to deal with that friggin’ tire again. Better to let society at large deal with it.

Tires are just one example of mega-waste. There are chemical plant discharges into rivers, smokestack pollution, old computer equipment, plastic bags everywhere, coal ash ponds, lakes of pig shit (yeah, that’s a thing). Plenty more. You know. Just look around.

One would think that in pure capitalism, the price paid for a product would include not only the cost of production but also the cost of disposal when the time comes. “Life cycle cost” is the term. Included in the price would be fair profit for the producer.

Corps, however, would rather “externalize” the cost and avoid the expense and hassle of cleanup. This term refers to a cost that is born by neither the buyer nor the seller, but by some individual or group not involved in the transaction.

CCPP / externalization is a profitable game for a big corp. Or, in the words of Shareholder activist Robert Monks, “The corporation is an externalizing machine in the same way a shark is a killing machine.”

But there is a growing worldwide product take-back movement. This means that responsibility for an item won’t end when it is handed over from the seller to the buyer. The producer has to take the item back when its useful life is over. Here we have de-externalization.

In the long run, everyone benefits, corporations included, resulting in a cleaner healthier and more sustainable planet. But alas, corps are short term thinkers.

In the post corporate personhood era, it will be easier to engineer a permanent solution to the waste tire problem. There will be economic incentives up and down the supply chain for old tires to make their way back to the manufacturers at the end of their useful lives. When you trade in your old tires, you will get a credit, as tire companies will be required to pay you for them. For those of you who remember deposit bottles, its the same concept.

Manufacturers are best positioned to deal with their own used products, since they know exactly what is in them and how they are put together. They also have the option of modifying their construction to facilitate recycling.

Thus manufacturer participation in recycling will be mandatory. It must be done be done according to best practices, and regulatory oversight will guarantee it. No cutting corners. Penalties will apply.

But we must also deal with existing tire piles. We have apparently made some progress in this front and there are actually fewer tires in waste piles now than in decades past.

But we aren’t finished. In the post corporate-personhood future, companies will also be required to use some of their profits to clean up existing collections of waste tires. Individual tire-makers have come and gone, but the industry remains robust. It must clean up the mess.

Once corporate personhood has been eliminated, passage of the relevant laws and regulations will be possible, and we can look forward to a tire-pile free world.

The post The Double C, Double P Game appeared first on The DNA of Corporations.

This is a switch from our beginnings. The Founders left the governance of corporations up to individual states. The Federal constitution says nothing of corps, but early state constitutions tightly regulated their behavior.

Corporations could be dissolved by the state legislature if they broke the rules, or if legislators just decided they were not serving the community. At the time, corps were not regarded as “people”, and the “due process” afforded real people was not available to them. If a legislator were having a bad day, he could take it out on an unfortunate business. Capital punishment for corporations was a thing.

Capital punishment for corporations should still be a thing, although its casual deployment should probably replaced with something more deliberate. Corporations will get due process, but the process for them doesn’t have to be the same as that for us humans.

Efforts by corporations to acquire rights continued during most of the 19th century, and continued into the 20th. Their efforts to acquire the rights enjoyed by ordinary human citizens were largely successful.

Armed with said rights, hordes of lawyers and lobbyists, and unlimited cash, corporations get away with all kinds of misbehavior. We observe the disinformation on Facebook, abandoned mines, oil wells leaking methane and toxic goo, failing electrical grids, the perilous temporary containment of nuclear waste, and plastic everywhere its not supposed to be. We don’t like any of it, but we can’t figure out how to fix it.

Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg takes his place among other corporate executives. He is not an outlier. He’s just another CEO doing his job.

During 2018 testimony Senator Orrin Hatch asked Mr. Z, “So, how do you sustain a business model in which users don’t pay for your service?”

He replied “Senator, we run ads”.

Some onlookers thought they observed a smirk in Mr. Z’s reply. My impression is that he tried to suppress the smirk, but was not entirely successful.

They do run ads. They are the source of 98% of Facebook’s revenue. Therefore, the company needs eyeballs. Lots of them. They would like to have as many people as possible spending as much time as possible staring at the screen, scrolling and clicking. As ads are displayed and viewed, money accumulates. Whether this is healthy behavior for humans, young or old, or for society overall is not part of the calculation since the company is not liable for any unfortunate consequences.

To attract viewers, Facebook needs “content”. New material keeps people engaged, so it must be constantly refreshed. Cat video producers are impressively creative, and they are definitely a source of revenue as users mindlessly click on the next one.

But far better is demonizing various racial / ethnic groups, blaming them for, well, everything, and propagating unlikely conspiracy theories thus producing rage, indignation and frenzied non-stop clicking. This is the heroin of internet content and the holy grail for social media platforms.

Not surprising therefore that Mr. Z says people should decide the truth of what they are viewing, not tech companies. Convenient and lucrative. Other CEOs might criticize Facebooks behavior, but when questioned about policies that might affect their own companies, they can be counted on the take the position that is most profitable for them. Mr. Z mixes effortlessly with the crowd.

The post Mr. Z — Part 2 appeared first on The DNA of Corporations.

The writer predicts that within a generation, those computers which had shrunk from the room-sized mainframes, to desktop PCs, to the contemporary version of the laptop (affectionately known at the time as “luggables”) would get smaller still, so that you could hold a computer in one hand or carry it in your pocket. They will have nice bright miniature TV screens, buttons, rechargeable batteries and be cheap enough to be available to everyone.

Super handy they will be. You can communicate with the outside world in all kinds of ways: order a pizza, call a cab, play music, even movies. It’s a pocket calculator, a flashlight, and you can play games. Compose and send little notes to your friends? Easy. Read the news or have it read to you? No problem. And to top it off, you can hold it to your ear and use it as a telephone. Heck, most people won’t even have regular phones any more. This little sucker will be all they need. The one thing the writer didn’t say is that you could browse the Internet because at the time, the Internet was barely a thing.

You are not entirely convinced of the plausibility of such a device, but are impressed by the writers imagination.

But the next part pisses you off. Being so useful and entertaining, the writer continues, people will become addicted to using their little gadgets. Folks will be playing with them non-stop, staring at the little screens and poking at them all day long, including while in line at the grocery store, eating dinner, playing cards or doing the laundry.

And worst of all, even while driving their cars. There they will become distracted, watching the little screen and playing with the device instead of paying attention to the road. Drivers will thus sometimes lose control, colliding with other vehicles, buildings and pedestrians with resulting death and destruction. This will happen frequently, with tragic news becoming normal.

You jump up and throw your magazine across the room. What ridiculous bullshit! Nobody would be stupid enough to do that. And if they did they’d be locked up. How do people get paid to write this crap?

But the writer is no less than a modern day Nostradamus. As we all now know, a prediction as described above would be 100% accurate. Those miniature computers, known as Smart Phones, have indeed appeared on the scene, and people use them everywhere, including in the car, where texting and driving don’t mix. Check out “From One Second to the Next” on YouTube by award-winning director Werner Herzog. There you can meet some of the participants in a few of those sad events. This is only one of many such hard-to-watch videos.

In a society where leaders and the citizens who choose them are thoughtful and clear-headed, such behavior would be immediately curtailed. Laws and the enforcement of them would be strict and sure. Instead, we do in fact have laws, at least in some localities, intended to limit vehicle cell phone use, but such laws are routinely ignored by citizens, seldom enforced by the police, and punishment, when it occurs, is only slightly more severe than unnoticeable.

But some countries got the memo. Americans might consider imitating friends in Ireland where the fine for texting while driving is 1000 Euros, or in Cape Town, South Africa, where cops can confiscate your phone if they catch you in the act.

Why is it so difficult to implement obvious common-sense restrictions on this dangerous behavior? It is because we live in a corporate state, defined thus:

The Corporate State is a system of government, nominally a democracy, whose executive, legislative, judicial and regulatory decision-making is conducted for the benefit of for-profit corporations through the influence of money.

As you might have guessed by observing your fellow travelers, much cell phone communication occurs in moving vehicles. Companies enriched by this behavior lobby against constraints on such usage. Its not that they want people to die in car crashes, its just that when they do, Providers aren’t liable for damages, and since no expense is incurred, it doesn’t enter into the calculation. There is no column in the spread-sheet for “dead commuters”.

This is normal behavior for big companies. Whenever they see a law or regulation either already on the books, or under consideration, that would affect its bottom line, they have effective methods of resistance.

This includes lobbying congress, and donating money strategically to individual lawmakers. Companies advertise their virtues and the truth of their policy positions. They establish so-called Think Tanks, tasked with providing academic credibility to those positions. They will endow chairs at universities to the same end, and sponsor ballot initiatives. They might even ghost write legislation, saving our representatives the trouble.

Corporations, prevented by statute from engaging in politics in the early days of our country, now do so freely. Vast wealth enables them to manipulate the economy for their own ends, at the expense of public safety, as the example above illustrates.

In response there is a proposed constitutional amendment stating that only actual human beings are “persons” in the eyes of the law, and that money is not equivalent to free speech. For those who would read the minds of the Founders, this might be closer to their original vision. There is a grass-roots organization promoting the “We the people amendment.” More details at http://www.movetoamend.org

The post 1985 appeared first on The DNA of Corporations.

The American Prospect, 8/6/21: “Who’s more Dangerous, Murdoch or Zuckerberg?”. New York Times, 6/4/21: “The Terrible Cost of Mark Zuckerberg’s Naivete”. Media Matters, 5/8/20: “Mark Zuckerberg is a hypocrite and a Trumpist”. And Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez asking: “So you won’t take down lies, or you will take down lies?”

ALLEGED CRIMES OF FACEBOOK

1) Vast amounts of disinformation appear on its pages.

2) Such material is not just “available” but is actively promoted. FB knows what you like and can send additional similar content to keep you engaged. Ads appear too, and as you read and click, money flows from the advertisers to Facebook. This is a successful business model, and the company would prefer that no constraints be placed upon it.

So as a person who controls and represents a large corporation, Mr. Zuckerberg’s behavior is not mysterious or unusual. He wants his company to make as much money as possible, just like every other CEO. Perfectly normal.

Corporations are economic entities, chartered by states to engage in business and make money. UCLA football coach Red Sanders declared “Winning isn’t everything, winning is the only thing.” For a large corporation, it is appropriate and accurate to modify that slogan slightly: “Money isn’t everything, money is the only thing.”

Unlike humans, a corporation with enough money can live indefinitely. Resilient humans can withstand protracted episodes of poverty, but corporations can’t. Unable to earn, borrow or otherwise acquire enough cash, the company quickly and inevitably dies.

Johnson and Johnson has operated continuously since 1886, witnessing the passage of many generations of executives, employees and stockholders. It’s a “mega-cap” company, with around 400 billion dollar stock value. It is just one example of many such long-lived companies. During that same period, countless others ran out of cash and disappeared.

Facebook, though newer, is likewise a mega-cap, pegged at close to a trillion dollars.

Pressure to make money within these huge companies, new or old, is relentless. Its like the forces deep in the Earth that turn carbon into diamonds.

Pressure grows beyond the control of any well-intentioned employee or executive. Sincere individuals might for example write credible, even eloquent corporate values statements, but they only marginally affect the company’s behavior and serve mainly as advertising.

This pressure to make/conserve money is exerted everywhere within the company. Departments are rewarded/penalized for going under/over budget. Employees, not excluding already highly paid executives, clamor for higher salaries. Individual employees may be rewarded for finding ways to make operations less costly. Stockholders demand higher share prices and dividends. Big institutional investors are expert at squeezing for more returns. Negotiating with suppliers and finding new ones never stops. Fights with labor unions, active or aspiring, is ongoing.

How do companies respond to all that pressure? Naturally they will buy as much advertising, and employ as many salespersons as they need to maximize income.

But a rich company can do more. It can fool regulators into ignoring dangers products might pose. It can influence elected representatives with campaign contributions. On leaving their offices, lawmakers are at risk of being trampled by lobbyists.

Companies might sue a country for attempting to enforce its own environmental laws. Waste, toxic or otherwise, will be disposed of in whatever manner is convenient. Paying bribes is not unknown.

Pressed day and night, companies struggle for profit. They will buy out their competitors if they can, and compete if they must. Money is the only thing.

So its fair and accurate to say that these large companies will do whatever they can get away with. For business school graduates, with starry-eyed romantic notions of corporations, and who are now becoming indignant, fix yourself a drink and take a detour to http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com

So there is no mystery. Mr. Z is a textbook executive. You could almost say that he is programmed to act as he does. So don’t freak out about Mr. Z. If you’re going to freak out, do it because there are countless Mr. Z’s acting as he does across numerous industries.

So begging is hopeless. If we want Mr. Zuckerberg, his corporation, or any corporation to behave, you must make them do it. They will not volunteer. If you are serious, then you will not shrink from using the tools available, namely: laws, regulations, courts, fines and jail.

Easier said than done, however, because of “corporate personhood”. Corporations, before the law, are regarded as “persons”, and are thereby entitled to substantially the same rights as individual humans. Laws attempting to limit corporate power have been repeatedly struck down by courts citing this principle.

But corporations had almost no rights in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The founders knew all about corporate power, and left their regulation to the states. The states were up to the task, and did so strictly.

There is a long interesting history about how corporations, wholly artificial economic entities, made by man and not by God, broke through these constraints, and acquired the same rights as people.

Granting corporations human rights is a correctable mistake. The remedy is the proposed 28th constitutional amendment, HJR 48, the “We the People Amendment”, stating that when the constitution mentions people or persons, it applies only to genuine homo sapiens. You and me. The grass-roots organization, Move To Amend, is promoting this legislation and deserves our support. Details at http://www.movetoamend.org.

The post Mr. Z — Part 1 appeared first on The DNA of Corporations.