Will there ever be an end to corporate corruption scandals?

[renata]

Et tu, Coca Cola?

I am crushed!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/06/18/coke.lawsuit.ap/index.html

Coca-Cola Co. admitted that employees rigged a marketing test of Frozen Coke at Burger King, as a former manager alleged last month in a whistleblower lawsuit.

An internal Coke document filed as part of the suit said an outside consultant was hired to spend up to $10,000 to boost demand for Frozen Coke and other frozen drinks during the test three years ago in Richmond, Virginia.

Steven Heyer, Coke's president and chief operating officer, apologized in a letter late Tuesday to Burger King CEO Brad Blum.

"These actions were wrong and inconsistent with the values of the Coca-Cola Co.," Heyer wrote. "Our relationships with Burger King and all of our customers are of the utmost importance to us and should be firmly grounded in only the highest-integrity actions."

.....

Miami-based Burger King said it was disappointed by the manipulation and is continuing its own probe. The fast-food chain is among Coke's largest customers, and according to the lawsuit, the Richmond promotion resulted in a $65 million Frozen Coke investment by Burger King.

......

[Dinonychus]

1: I doubt it.

2: I'm betting this Frozen Coke isn't gonna become a big thing.

[Soapy Sam]

Will there ever be an end to corporate corruption scandals?

Yeah, verily. The lion shall lie down with the lamb. The PLO and Mossad will have a pig roast to ******** about the good old days.
British Airways shall brew a decent cup of coffee. There shall be lightnings and signs in the Heavens.

And the dead shall rise up, waving worthless share certificates and point the finger at CEOs and false accountants, crying "Many, many shekels stolen".

(Add candles, beasts and thigs with horns. Final Trumpet.
Curtain. Exeunt Omnes).

In short, (oops!. Renata) one has one's doubts.




Edited for typo, but I shall leave "thigs". There may well be thigs.

[Badger]

When greed and ego are the big motivators, stuff like this will happen.

And when aren't greed and ego the big motivators behind any size company?

[renata]

Blaming myself for poor choice of topic title

Actually, I thought the Coke bit was really funny. Coke is one of the quintessential American companies and they rigged market tests to sell slushies. Somehow it seems much funnier than Global Crossing or Enron. Probably does not seem too funny to SEC or Bruger King, I guess.

What is going to be the next big corporate scandal? Did Pepsi rig the "Pepsi Challenge"? :)

[richardm]

Originally posted by renata
Did Pepsi rig the "Pepsi Challenge"? :)

According to one of the posters here (can't remember who you are, sorry!) - Yes, they did.

The Coca-Cola was served flat and warm, while the Pepsi was ice-cold and fizzy. Allegedly.

[Skeptical Greg]

Will there ever be an end to corporate corruption scandals?

Nope...

Corporations aren't corrupt, people are.. They are also stupid...

[Darat]

Originally posted by Badger
When greed and ego are the big motivators, stuff like this will happen.

And when aren't greed and ego the big motivators behind any size company?

Well not behind all companies - some do have other values that are held very dearly.

[Quasi]

Anyone remember when McDonalds admitted its employees rigged the Monopoly scratch games? Turns out 6-8 people shared something like 85% of all the prize money. Or Lucent, Enron, Global Crossing, Savings and Loans, Junk Bonds etc etc. Corruption is eternal. My biggest problem is that the USA is obsessed with short term gains, and the executives are rewarded for failure. Lets go back a few decades where the CEO's had to rely mainly on the stock for their pay to keep them honest.

[Badger]

Originally posted by Darat


Well not behind all companies - some do have other values that are held very dearly.

Um, ya. Sure.

I bet those values get compromised before the bottom line does.

Money is the point. If a company has to say something, or do something to keep more money coming in than going out, they tend to do whatever it takes.

To be successful in business, one must make money and look good doing it. Corporations tend to pay lip service to whatever makes them look good.

Guess how cynical I am, on a scale of 1 to 10.

[renata]

Pepsi challenge is rigged? LOL! These are such cute corruption scandals. What is the next one going to be?

[Badger]

Originally posted by renata
Pepsi challenge is rigged? LOL! These are such cute corruption scandals. What is the next one going to be?

While I can understand your mirth at how corporations do stupid little stuff to trick the unsuspecting consumer, the underlying risk is that one of these quaint stunts opens a can of worms that ends with hundreds or thousands of employees losing large portions of their investments due to collapse of the companies stock.

No, I didn't work for Enron.

[renata]

Originally posted by Badger


While I can understand your mirth at how corporations do stupid little stuff to trick the unsuspecting consumer, the underlying risk is that one of these quaint stunts opens a can of worms that ends with hundreds or thousands of employees losing large portions of their investments due to collapse of the companies stock.

No, I didn't work for Enron.

Badger,
I agree. I am not condoning it. Indeed I know millions of people lost a lot of money, and hundreds of thousands lost their livelyhoods. My commentary was only based on small items, not of course on the pervasive and dangerous corruption permeation corporate world today. If that is offensive, my apologies.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Badger


While I can understand your mirth at how corporations do stupid little stuff to trick the unsuspecting consumer, the underlying risk is that one of these quaint stunts opens a can of worms that ends with hundreds or thousands of employees losing large portions of their investments due to collapse of the companies stock.

No, I didn't work for Enron.


Hang on a moment: You're not saying that companies shouldn't do these stupid little things because that might reveal the dreadful big things, are you?

You're not suggesting that it's better that the can of worms remains closed because of the damage it might do to employees?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Badger


Um, ya. Sure.

I bet those values get compromised before the bottom line does.

Money is the point. If a company has to say something, or do something to keep more money coming in than going out, they tend to do whatever it takes.

To be successful in business, one must make money and look good doing it. Corporations tend to pay lip service to whatever makes them look good.

Guess how cynical I am, on a scale of 1 to 10.

I'll not disagree that you are probably right for the majority of companies however some, especially privately held companies do operate for different reasons.

Obviously companies have to make money else, eventually, they wouldn't be able to pay the bills but not all companies are willing to do whatever it takes.

[Badger]

Renata, I'm sorry. I don't mean to seem like I'm taking offense.

The dishonest nature of corporations is a sore spot with me, is all. I'll shut up now.

Richard M, no that's not what I'm getting at. My point is that the people in charge of these companies are dishonest. And it bugs me.

[Badger]

Darat, I'm not against companies making money. It's when they pretend to care about their employees and customers and the environment and health when in fact it's only a marketing ploy that I have a problem.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Badger
Richard M, no that's not what I'm getting at. My point is that the people in charge of these companies are dishonest. And it bugs me.

Ah! I thought you must have meant something like that, but couldn't get the sense of it from what you wrote. Phew!

[Robaato]

Originally posted by richardm
According to one of the posters here (can't remember who you are, sorry!) - Yes, they did.

The Coca-Cola was served flat and warm, while the Pepsi was ice-cold and fizzy. Allegedly. That might've been me. It happened a few years back at the Taste of Minnesota festival, and when I asked why they had let the Coke go flat, the tester merely mumbled something about how my preference would be noted, and called for the next rube.

Another fave from a while back was when the local Hardees franchises (known as Carl's Jr. in other parts of the country) posted signs touting the fact that a survey showed that Hardees french fries were the best tasting fries in all of fast-food-dom. In small print at the bottom of the signs was the fact that the group polled was made up of Hardees employees.

[Nyarlathotep]

This thing with Frozen Coke doesn't surprise me. Lot's of corporations make big money decieving the public, the government, etc. Why should it come as a shock that they also deceive each other?

I think it is just a side effect of hman nature. Where there is money to be made, ther is always going to be some corruption. The more money there is, the more likely someone will decide to get his hands on it through dishonest means, sort of a corrolary to the cliche 'everyone has their price'. Since both Coke and Burger King are multi-billion dollar operations, it shouldn't come as any surprise that one tried to cheat the other.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Badger
Darat, I'm not against companies making money. It's when they pretend to care about their employees and customers and the environment and health when in fact it's only a marketing ploy that I have a problem.

We agree.

[Badger]

Ok.

Prediction of next big scandal is McDonalds Health Menu. It'll be discovered to be the same soylent green formula they use in their other crap, just in different shaped molds.

Oh, wait. That wouldn't really be a surprise, would it?

Milkshake=fries=mcnugget=boy (to paraphrase PETA):D

[Tez]

Originally posted by Quasi
Anyone remember when McDonalds admitted its employees rigged the Monopoly scratch games? Turns out 6-8 people shared something like 85% of all the prize money. Or Lucent, Enron, Global Crossing, Savings and Loans, Junk Bonds etc etc. Corruption is eternal. My biggest problem is that the USA is obsessed with short term gains, and the executives are rewarded for failure. Lets go back a few decades where the CEO's had to rely mainly on the stock for their pay to keep them honest.

Lucent?

[St_Hereticus]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Nope...

Corporations aren't corrupt, people are.. They are also stupid... I was under the impression that corporations are, in fact, "persons" in the legalese of the courts. I can't remember where I read this though, so I may be wrong. Any corporate lawyers out there who can let us know whether or not this is correct?

[Snide]

Originally posted by St_Hereticus
I was under the impression that corporations are, in fact, "persons" in the legalese of the courts. I can't remember where I read this though, so I may be wrong. Any corporate lawyers out there who can let us know whether or not this is correct? I am merely a law student, but yes this is correct.

Ain't semantics fun? :)

[Snide]

Originally posted by Tez


Lucent? Lucite maybe?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
This thing with Frozen Coke doesn't surprise me. Lot's of corporations make big money decieving the public, the government, etc. Why should it come as a shock that they also deceive each other?



This is an interesting case study of the free enterprise system, in my opinion, and how well it works.

Let's assume for the moment that the "persons" who make up a company are as corrupt and deceitful as even the most cynical person here believes. And let us suppose Coke never got caught in their Frozen Coke scheme. It is not impossible to believe there are other such schemes which have never been caught.

So Coke tricked another company into buying a product. And they made how much out of the deal? A pittance, by corporate standards.

If the product sucks, the customer isn't going to buy it, and they will make a lot less than if they were honest and made a good product and were able to keep channelling the stuff through the vendors.

Make a good product and it sells itself. Make a bad product and it doesn't matter how much deceit you pull off, you won't profit by it as much as by being honest and giving the customers what they want.

[Thumbo]

Originally posted by Luke T.

Make a good product and it sells itself. Make a bad product and it doesn't matter how much deceit you pull off, you won't profit by it as much as by being honest and giving the customers what they want.

Counter examples: the recording industry today, homeopathic drug makers, Microsoft.

None of these make money by producing good products. They produce poor products but have managed to fool large numbers of people into thinking they are actually good.

[Badger]

Originally posted by Luke T.


This is an interesting case study of the free enterprise system, in my opinion, and how well it works.

Let's assume for the moment that the "persons" who make up a company are as corrupt and deceitful as even the most cynical person here believes. And let us suppose Coke never got caught in their Frozen Coke scheme. It is not impossible to believe there are other such schemes which have never been caught.

So Coke tricked another company into buying a product. And they made how much out of the deal? A pittance, by corporate standards.

If the product sucks, the customer isn't going to buy it, and they will make a lot less than if they were honest and made a good product and were able to keep channelling the stuff through the vendors.

Make a good product and it sells itself. Make a bad product and it doesn't matter how much deceit you pull off, you won't profit by it as much as by being honest and giving the customers what they want.

I agree with you.

However, it seems that the current corporate culture is focused on the short term bottom line, They live quarter by quarter. Anything that will bump up this quarters earnings is done.

So, yes, it may be a pittance, but it's a pittance more in this quarter.

It seems to me that the long term implications are not considered, or if they are, they're ignored.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Thumbo


Counter examples: the recording industry today, homeopathic drug makers, Microsoft.

None of these make money by producing good products. They produce poor products but have managed to fool large numbers of people into thinking they are actually good.

But isn't the recording industry taking some punches these days? Sooner or later, I think the best wins out. And the home computer industry is relatively new.

Competition is vital for free enterprise to flourish. Otherwise, it isn't even free enterprise, really.

And I doubt the homeopathic drug makers will ever make more than a fraction of the profit of what Tylenol makes. :D

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Badger


I agree with you.

However, it seems that the current corporate culture is focused on the short term bottom line, They live quarter by quarter. Anything that will bump up this quarters earnings is done.

So, yes, it may be a pittance, but it's a pittance more in this quarter.

It seems to me that the long term implications are not considered, or if they are, they're ignored.

But every business knows that to survive long term, you have to have constant growth. A constant expansion of your market. And there is only one way to do that. Make a good product.

What some of them have yet to learn is that competition is a good thing. Coke and Pepsi are great examples of this. There was a fantastic documentary about them on the History channel a couple of weeks ago, and one of the corporate officers for Coke or Pepsi, I can't remember which, said that neither of them would be as big as they are without the existence of the other.

[xouper]

Thumbo: Counter examples: ... Microsoft. None of these make money by producing good products.Depends how you define "good".

[Badger]

Originally posted by Luke T.


But every business knows that to survive long term, you have to have constant growth. A constant expansion of your market. And there is only one way to do that. Make a good product.

What some of them have yet to learn is that competition is a good thing. Coke and Pepsi are great examples of this. There was a fantastic documentary about them on the History channel a couple of weeks ago, and one of the corporate officers for Coke or Pepsi, I can't remember which, said that neither of them would be as big as they are without the existence of the other.

You're assuming they're looking at the long term. I find that not to be the case.

In general, corporations try to expand the market by convincing people they need usless things (blue ketchup form Heinz) or that their crap is better than the competitions crap (Coke and Pepsi both sell sweetened, carbonated water......yay)

Your principles of business will indeed make your company profitable over the long term. I'm not denying that.

I'm just saying that's not really how it is today.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Badger


In general, corporations try to expand the market by convincing people they need usless things (blue ketchup form Heinz)
They sell blue ketchup now? I thought they only had red, green and purple.

I must rush out and consume!

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Luke T.


But every business knows that to survive long term, you have to have constant growth. A constant expansion of your market. And there is only one way to do that. Make a good product.

What some of them have yet to learn is that competition is a good thing. Coke and Pepsi are great examples of this. There was a fantastic documentary about them on the History channel a couple of weeks ago, and one of the corporate officers for Coke or Pepsi, I can't remember which, said that neither of them would be as big as they are without the existence of the other.

Competition is all well and good, but you can compete without being deceptive. If what was said about Coke was true they weren't just competing with Pepsi, they were decieving Burger King into thinking that ther was more demand for a product than there really was.

I have to agree with Badger that the amount gained may have been a pittance but it is another pittance this quarter. I would go one further and say (from my own personal experinces) that it is a pittance THIS quarter and for THIS particular unit. I have seen more than my share of managers who are willing to sacrifice the long term good of the company in order to make themselves look good.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Badger


You're assuming they're looking at the long term. I find that not to be the case.

In general, corporations try to expand the market by convincing people they need usless things (blue ketchup form Heinz) or that their crap is better than the competitions crap (Coke and Pepsi both sell sweetened, carbonated water......yay)

Your principles of business will indeed make your company profitable over the long term. I'm not denying that.

I'm just saying that's not really how it is today.


It boggles my mind to imagine how companies like Coke, can sell enough of that stuff to still make money, after spending billions on advertising.


The cost to make a can of coke must be a (miniscule) fraction of a cent.

When I see one of those 18 wheelers loaded up with Coke, I think: " How many loads must that thing carry, just to pay for the truck.. ?"

[Badger]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

They sell blue ketchup now? I thought they only had red, green and purple.

I must rush out and consume!

Just read about it yesterday. I can't remember if it was CNN, Globe and Mail, or Canoe and don't have time to search right now.

It was accompanying an article where they're shuttind down their production of chocolate french fries.

And here I thought my garage had a lot of useless crap in it....

[xouper]

Badger: You're assuming they're looking at the long term. I find that not to be the case.May I ask if you have a cite for that conclusion, or is this just your opinion?

Here are some counter-examples that require long term thinking and planning:

wine companies

International Paper, one of the largest private forestland owners in the U.S. (surely the life cycle of a tree is longer than quarterly)

And in general, any company that makes an investment in capital equipment or facilities with a long term life span.Just because you can find some examples of companies that exhibit short term thinking does not mean they all do, or even most do, or even that a blue ketchup company never thinks long term. But if you have some cites that show most companies only think in the short term, please share.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Diogenes



It boggles my mind to imagine how companies like Coke, can sell enough of that stuff to still make money, after spending billions on advertising.


The cost to make a can of coke must be a (miniscule) fraction of a cent.

When I see one of those 18 wheelers loaded up with Coke, I think: " How many loads must that thing carry, just to pay for the truck.. ?"

Coke owns hundreds of other drinks/brands - it isn't just their cola. I think the worldwide revenues are in the region of about $15 billion dollars and the last global advertising spend estimate I saw (for 2001) was around $1.5 billion. (All figures from memory.)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Darat


Coke owns hundreds of other drinks/brands - it isn't just their cola. I think the worldwide revenues are in the region of about $15 billion dollars and the last global advertising spend estimate I saw (for 2001) was around $1.5 billion. (All figures from memory.)

Cool.

And they wouldn't have all those other drinks/brands if they hadn't been prompted by the competition to do so. In fact, according the documentary I mentioned above, Coke was precisely motivated to do so because Pepsi started doing it.

But that is also why we get things like blue ketchup and chocolate french fries. They are trial balloons. Some trial balloons turn out to be made of lead. :)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Cool.

And they wouldn't have all those other drinks/brands if they hadn't been prompted by the competition to do so. In fact, according the documentary I mentioned above, Coke was precisely motivated to do so because Pepsi started doing it.

But that is also why we get things like blue ketchup and chocolate french fries. They are trial balloons. Some trial balloons turn out to be made of lead. :)

Chocolate French Fries are "real" :eek: - I thought Badger was joking for affect!

(Edited to add.)

Is this because kids aren't eating enough "fries" :mad:

[Badger]

Originally posted by xouper
May I ask if you have a cite for that conclusion, or is this just your opinion?

Here are some counter-examples that require long term thinking and planning:

wine companies

International Paper, one of the largest private forestland owners in the U.S. (surely the life cycle of a tree is longer than quarterly)

And in general, any company that makes an investment in capital equipment or facilities with a long term life span.Just because you can find some examples of companies that exhibit short term thinking does not mean they all do, or even most do, or even that a blue ketchup company never thinks long term. But if you have some cites that show most companies only think in the short term, please share.

Yes, it's opinion. I would venture that it's informed opinion, though I may just be biased.

But Enron, the dot com fiasco, and the products of the big three american automakers are good examples of what I base this on. I also have worked for and have had contact with a number of corporations, and smaller companies, and so have some personal experience with this mentality.

Yes, wine companies probably look long term....some of them. The screw cap variety....well different market I guess.

I'm not familiar with International Paper, its environmental policies, or corporate structure. But yes, a tree has a longer lifespan than quarterly.

"Investment" in capital....well, I've seen a number of stupid capital expenditures including equipment that had to be retrofitted in order to make it functional, and politically advantageous expenditures rather than most cost effective ones.

In a nutshell, I've seen egos get in the way of good decisions. That's where I'm coming from.

[Badger]

Originally posted by Darat


Chocolate French Fries are "real" :eek: - I thought Badger was joking for affect!

(Edited to add.)

Is this because kids aren't eating enough "fries" :mad:

[swearing loudly]FRIGINFRAMISTANINYOUNT!![/swearing loudly]mad: :mad:

I can't find the article! Google for "Funky Fries" though.

And yes, they were trying to get people to eat more fries.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Badger


Yes, it's opinion. I would venture that it's informed opinion, though I may just be biased.

But Enron, the dot com fiasco, and the products of the big three american automakers are good examples of what I base this on. I also have worked for and have had contact with a number of corporations, and smaller companies, and so have some personal experience with this mentality.

Yes, wine companies probably look long term....some of them. The screw cap variety....well different market I guess.

I'm not familiar with International Paper, its environmental policies, or corporate structure. But yes, a tree has a longer lifespan than quarterly.

"Investment" in capital....well, I've seen a number of stupid capital expenditures including equipment that had to be retrofitted in order to make it functional, and politically advantageous expenditures rather than most cost effective ones.

In a nutshell, I've seen egos get in the way of good decisions. That's where I'm coming from.

Badger, somewhere between your thoughts and my thoughts is probably Reality. I've seen the mentality of which you speak myself. It was a regular complaint of mine in the military. But the government doesn't have to make a profit, so short-term thinking is rampant.

I also see some short-term thinking in the corporation for which I currently work. They are laying off a lot of people lately during this economic downturn, and this is going to hurt them in the long run when they need that talent again later. And they will definitely be needing it again later. They will have to spend far more training new employees than they are saving now by laying people off. It seems they haven't learned this from the last economic downturn cycle back in '98. They were really scrambling for talent a couple of years ago.

But in the bigger picture of my corporation, they have to look as far as 10 years ahead at all times. I am in the computer chip manufacturing industry, so you can imagine the necessity of looking ahead. Or maybe you can't. I don't know how much people outide the field are aware of the necessity of looking ahead in this field, but I can tell you it is a matter of corporate life and death.

[xouper]

Badger: "Investment" in capital....well, I've seen a number of stupid capital expenditures including equipment that had to be retrofitted in order to make it functional, and politically advantageous expenditures rather than most cost effective ones.Sure, that sometimes happens. But is it the norm? Seems to me that long term thinking of the stupid kind is not the same as no long term thinking at all. I don't imagine there are many companies that haven't made occasional errors in their long term planning. But I suspect that a company that consistently errs in their long term thinking won't be around in the long term.

In a nutshell, I've seen egos get in the way of good decisions. That's where I'm coming from.OK, yes, I too have seen many examples of short-sightedness get in the way of long term results. I just question your assertion that this is the norm rather than the exception. Perhaps we simply disagree on this point.

P.S. I once had a project manager reply to my technical objections by bluntly and in no uncertain terms telling me that we will have time to re-do the project right at a later time. In hindsight, he was wrong.

[Badger]

Originally posted by xouper
Sure, that sometimes happens. But is it the norm? Seems to me that long term thinking of the stupid kind is not the same as no long term thinking at all. I don't imagine there are many companies that haven't made occasional errors in their long term planning. But I suspect that a company that consistently errs in their long term thinking won't be around in the long term.

OK, yes, I too have seen many examples of short-sightedness get in the way of long term results. I just question your assertion that this is the norm rather than the exception. Perhaps we simply disagree on this point.

P.S. I once had a project manager reply to my technical objections by bluntly and in no uncertain terms telling me that we will have time to re-do the project right at a later time. In hindsight, he was wrong.

I admit my cynicism freely. And I wasn't always this way.

The more I see, the more cynical I get, though. Banks making record profits, simultaneously raising user fees and laying off staff. Air Canada. Shell in Africa.

Yes, they're anecdotal evidence, and I'm at the point where I've heard enough anecdotes and seen enough actual occurrences first hand to be leery.

I guess the real evidence lies in places that we don't have access to, such as detailed accounting info, and unwritten company policies. But time will tell one way or another.

Regarding your PS... As Engineers say, you can have it quick, good, or cheap. Pick two.

[Snide]

A little off-topic (maybe): I have a theory. Had Coca Cola started with the exact same formula Royal Crown (RC) uses, and vice-versa, with everything else being the same business-wise (e.g., advertising budgets), Coke would still be #1, and Pepsi #2, with RC still trailing.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Snide
A little off-topic (maybe): I have a theory. Had Coca Cola started with the exact same formula Royal Crown (RC) uses, and vice-versa, with everything else being the same business-wise (e.g., advertising budgets), Coke would still be #1, and Pepsi #2, with RC still trailing.

You just might be right. According to the aformentioned Coke/Pepsi documentary I saw, it was widely believed that New Coke was an attempt by Coke to match Pepsi's taste. Apparently, even Coke believed the results of the Pepsi taste test challenge. But Coke found out that they were no longer just a soft drink, they are an institution and the backlash was harsh. Even non-cola drinkers wrote them nasty letters. :eek:

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by St_Hereticus
I was under the impression that corporations are, in fact, "persons"
in the legalese of the courts. I can't remember where I read this though,
so I may be wrong. Any corporate lawyers out there who can let us know
whether or not this is correct?

I did a bit of digging and found this.

The biggest blow to citizen constitutional authority came in 1886.
The US Supreme Court ruled in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific
Railroad, that a private corporation was a "natural person" under the
US Constitution, sheltered by the 14th Amendment [(even though that
amendment had been written and ratified in 1868 to protect the rights
of freed slaves)__[3]] , which requires due process in the criminal prosecution
of "persons." Following this ruling, huge, wealthy corporations were allowed
to compete on "equal terms" with neighborhood businesses and individuals.
"There was no history, logic or reason given to support that view," Supreme
Court Justice William 0. Douglas wrote 60 years later._[4]

More Stuff... (http://www.ratical.org/corporations/index.html)