It comes as a surprise to many that the purpose of a corporation is not to make good cars, in the case of General Motors, or good loans, in the case of the Bank of America, or even just any old car or and old loan. The purpose of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders. Actually, that last is not even required. The CEO of Chesapeake Energy got a $112 million dollar bonus in a year that the corporate stock declined by 40 percent. No loyalty to shareholders, countries, politicians or anything else applies. In times past, making good products, providing good jobs, being a good "corporate citizen" enabled them to make money, but that is no longer required. You have witnessed in the past year what happens when corporations fail at their efforts to "increase shareholder equity." You lose your job. You lose the ability to pay your mortgage. You lose access to quality products you wish to purchase - mad cow disease, lead paint on toys, threats to aquifers, retirement accounts, public services, and on and on. Taxes to support your government and to replace wear and tear they create in pursuit of profits on roads, for instance, and the judicial system used to keep the biggest corporation from eating all the other ones are rarely paid by large corporations. 50% of the Fortune 500 corporations pay no taxes at all and those that due on average pay about 17% on their income - less than do you.

How did this happen? In 1886 a case referred to as Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. is often cited as the beginning of "corporate personhood" under the law. (An amusing sidebar, the offhand comment which said something like "we are of the opinion that the 14th amendment (equal protection clause) does apply to corporations" was inserted by a clerk into the ruling - not even a judge). Ever since, corporation legal departments have worked furiously to expand this abomination - which was, some say, inadvertent. Several times as this horror expanded into settled law, attempts were made to control its evil effect. The Tillman Act of 1907 banned direct corporate contributions to federal political campaigns. Lest you see Tillman as some sort of liberal reformer, he accused Teddy Roosevelt of encouraging intermarrying of the races. Sort of makes me think of the birth baggers of today. Then in 1976 (Buckley v. Valeo) the Supreme Court decided that money is protected by the free speech provisions of the Constitution. Just last week, the Court again ruled that it is unConstitutional to limit "free speech" (read money) that corporations can spend on elections.

This is almost like one of those Euler syllogisms from logic. Corporations are given personhood in exchange for creating a strong economy. As persons, they attempt to buy elections. That is rejected by Congress. The Supremes (think black robes not sequined dresses) decide that money is free speech for all persons, including corporations and now there can be no limit on the amount given directly to federal candidates.

It is funny (sick) that oft you hear people say that taxing corporations is pointless as the costs are just passed on to their customers but in this case, it is thought that it is not the customer's money that is being spent by the corporations to buy influence but the blood sweat and tears of this fictitious corporate "person." I have never heard of an instance in which a customer was asked whether they felt that it was okay if the corporation that made their car bought an election so that their Social Security or Medicare could be taken away. I recommend you think long and hard about whether you think that possible in these days in which the vast majority of campaign money is spent on advertising.

The last missing part here, of course, is the meaning of usury and it closes the loop. Real persons have to work to earn a living. They eat, breathe, have children, family, die etc. Not so the corporation. Historically, very negative sanction was placed upon people who were in some position where they could just take valuable stuff from others. Bullies come in many flavors. Physical bullies use strength, or firearms or intimidation and threats to back up their demands. As society became more complicated, monopolies achieved the same result without having to resort to the strong arm stuff. This is the generic meaning of usury. It is not just the "Shylock" stuff from the Merchant of Venice, it is getting into a situation where a "person" can take from others based upon something that they have or know without recourse of the person losing whatever is taken. It came from money lending, which is an appropriate context from which to consider our current situation but in those days of yore, there was no other source for borrowed money so it amounted to a choice of submitting or destitution as it does today. That is the nature of "too big to fail" about which we hear much from the talking heads of one persuasion. Just like the brigand, it is your money or your life (or your livelihood).