Just months after the Supreme Court added yet another boulder to the edifice of corporate personhood, Nike has pushed the boundaries to something resembling corporate priesthood.
We knew Citizens United was trouble.
So now Nike, brandishing court-sanctioned human qualities, feels empowered to cast judgment (or lack of same) over the sins of its spokesperson, Tiger Woods. More importantly, to counsel the rest of us in our assessment of the man and his actions.
Clearly, Nike would have us give Tiger a pass because he "learned" something. And some of us have done exactly that. Others condemn him. The point is, of what relevance is Nike's opinion... and who is Nike anyway? The CEO? The marketing department? The secretaries? The droves of Third World factory workers upon whose backs the firm's shareholders have risen? Does a corporation have ethical and moral judgment in the first place? (Not often, it seems.)
Point of information: If a labor union can't take political action on behalf of its members, why is it permissible for a corporation to pronounce moral judgment which would seem to reflect the views of its governing board, employees and shareholders?
The answer is clear. Nike DOESN'T speak for any person. It speaks the calculus of the bottom line. As corporations gain a greater hold on democracy, the "ethics" of the bottom line are usurping human values, enshrining themselves via Big Media as America's moral DNA.
That's personhood, Supreme Court style.