Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Revoking corporate charters
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Economy and Business
Google
nebraska29
In theory, a corporation can only operate under a charter that is granted to it. In the late 19th century, various states had provisions about the right to revoke charters if corporations got out of line. This is a rather moot issue as of late, but should it be? If the consumers are the invisible hands of the economy, shouldn't they also be the hands that fold a given company in their neighborhood if they determine that they want to do so?

Here is a radio discussion on revoking corporate charters.
http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/GROR002.shtml

Here is some other material as well.

QUOTE
For most of the 20th century, American citizens have become accustomed to challenging corporate harms and corporate abuses of authority one harm at a time - one clearcut Timber Harvest Plan at a time, one toxic spill at a time, one plant closure at a time. It wasn't always like this. From the American Revolution through the end of the 19th century, a corporation was an artificial, subordinate entity with no inherent rights of its own, and incorporation was a privilege bestowed by the sovereign people. For example, in 1834 the Pennsylvania Legislature declared:

"A corporation in law is just what the incorporation act makes it. It is the creature of the law and may be molded to any shape or for any purpose that the Legislature may deem most conducive to the common good."

Here are a few examples of how different the rules were in the US until the late 1800's:

Corporations had to have a specific purpose written into their charter (license to do business); if they didn't fulfill it, or exceeded their authority, their charter could be revoked.

Corporations were prohibited from owning other corporations.

Corporate charters were granted for a specific period of time, usually 10-30 years, and ceased to exist after that time unless they were renewed.

State legislatures set the rates which corporations could charge for their products or services.

Corporation were prohibited from donating to political candidates or charitable organizations.

All corporate records and documents were open to the public (or the legislature or Attorney General, depending on the state)

Corporation could not own land beyond what was necessary for the carrying out of their chartered duties.

Boards of directors and stockholders were held personally liable for all harms and debts. The ‘limited liability corporation’, as we know it today, did not exist.

Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County

Questions for debate:

1.)Should citizens have the right to revoke corporate charters where they live if they desire to do so?

2.)Would such provisions force companies to be responsive to citizens?

3.)In our present state of affairs, who has more power? Corporations or citizens?
Google
TedN5
As you can see from my signature quotation, I am a critic of the modern corporation. They are the most powerful institutions in our society and largely control governments at both the state and county level. Furthermore, they have a strangle hold on major media outlets. I certainly think their power needs to be curbed if we are to preserve any remnant of democracy. However, I think it would take a major economic crisis for any thing like this to have a chance of being enacted. Furthermore, I see the suggested solution as being somewhat naive and chaotic. I would favor a national charter system with teeth, removal of court imposed treatment of corporations as individual, removal of their treatment as having the same civil rights as individuals, and legislated requirements that they serve other societal needs rather than just share owner value.
kimpossible
I was under the impression that after Clara County vs. South Pacific Railroad, corporations were no longer charters of the state, but entities by themselves. Are corporations still required to be granted a charter by the state legislature before beginning operations? If this is not the case, I don't see how we would be able to to legally make this so. Additionally, many laws have been relaxed by states to encourage corporate growth, which I feel is probably a bigger problem.

However, I am not entirely against a charter system, although I feel that it would not work economically with how corporations are run today. It would be costly and time consuming, and I think it would simply be easier to have strict regulations on corporations, like the ones that were in place until the late 70s to hold corporations accountable.
skeeterses
We definitely need stricter regulations on corporations, including the ability of the public to revoke charters. There has been too much fraud and dishonesty happening in the corporate world. Unless investors take responsibility for running their companies, the Government will have to act. One of the reasons corporations have been able to gain such wealth and power is because the public allowed investing to become a speculation game.

A corporation differs from a small business in several aspects. A small business owner typically owns the entire business or shares ownership with a partner. In that case, the owner is entitled to either 100 percent or 50 percent of the profit.
In a corporation, hundreds or thousands of individuals own shares of the company.
Unfortunately though, many corporations will pay the CEO a very large salary but pay the investors chump change for dividends.

Unless stock prices go up, it is possible for many investors to invest in a profitable company and still lose money. Instead of reading the Wall Street Journal and looking at graphs, investors need to run the companies they invest in. They could visit the factories and offices. They could make the phone calls and ask where the money is being spent. The CEO needs to be the servant of the investors once again.
Hugo
Let me see here. we have a problem with government and corporations being too tight. Now we are going to give the state the power to revoke charters. Them corporations better hope they pick the winning party to donate to. They also better donate a lot more. ABC Corp supports party A, XYZ Corp. ( ABC Corp's competitor) supports party B. Party A wins, XYZ Corp loses it's charter.

QUOTE
Unless stock prices go up, it is possible for many investors to invest in a profitable company and still lose money. Instead of reading the Wall Street Journal and looking at graphs, investors need to run the companies they invest in. They could visit the factories and offices. They could make the phone calls and ask where the money is being spent. The CEO needs to be the servant of the investors once again.


Not gonna happen in the world of day trading.
Google
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.