I. Introduction
How many of you would call Nike a person? Clearly, you are not Supreme Court justices. Corporate Personhood is the legal idea that some human rights are extended to corporations by the 14th amendment, which gives citizenship rights to all people born in the United States but does not define “people” as “live humans.” Corporate Personhood has been in the news lately due to Citizens United VS the FEC, but this cartoon – which attacks the idea of corporate personhood – was created in 2003 in response to a very different court case. The cartoon was persuasive because of its timing, logical appeal, and the shared beliefs of its target audience.

II. Body

A. Main Point #1: The cartoon’s Kairos is impressive.
1. Possible Subpoint: Kasky VS Nike was the first corporate personhood to reach the supreme court during the computer age. Matt Wuerker’s cartoon became one of the only political cartoons about Kasky VS Nike openly available.
2. Possible Subpoint: Most of the people viewing the cartoon knew enough about corporate personhood due to Kasky vs Nike to understand the cartoon.
Transition: Additionally, because viewers had already been exposed to a strong emotional argument against Corporate Personhood, Wuerker’s cartoon could focus on a logical argument.

B. Main point #2: The cartoon makes a strong logical argument. Wuerker’s claim is that human rights should be reserved for humans and he backs that up with facts that support his conclusion.
2. Possible Subpoint: Some of his points argue that humans are given rights by the law.
2. Possible Subpoint: Some of his points argue that humans have natural rights.
Transition: But his so-called data and logical reasoning is completely based on common beliefs that he assumes everyone
C. Main point #2:These shared beliefs are called commonplaces, and the cartoon capitalizes on a lot of American Commonplaces.
1. Possible Subpoint: American’s belief in the Constitution.
2. Possible Subpoint: American’s belief in the Natural Rights of Man.

III. Conclusion
A. Signal an End: Wuerker used ideas that Americans already believed – that humans have exclusive, natural rights which are protected by the Constitution – to back up his logical claim that those exclusive rights should not be given to corporations, at a time when a lot of people were thinking and learning about corporate personhood. In the end, Wuerker’s timing and the audience was just as important as his message when it came to convincing people corporate personhood is wrong. Did his cartoon convince you? The issue is not as simple as the cartoon makes it seem. Corporations may not be human, but they are run by humans. Should American’s rights only be upheld when we are acting as individuals?