Corporate personhood wasn't in the 2004 platform, but there was indeed one sentence opposing limited corporate liability. Congratulations, you've exposed the Reform Caucus conspiracy to "water down" the LP Platform. :-)
However, I never heard any Platform reformer complain about this LP position, and I for one oppose special limits on liability for corporations. As far as I can tell, a corporation is fundamentally just a scaled-up limited partnership that has no general partners. The crucial question is: would capital formation be threatened by a requirement for each corporation to have at least one liable general partner? I suspect that it wouldn't. If corporations are equivalent to scaled-up limited partnerships, then the traditional leftist argument against limited shareholder liability evaporates -- unless they are against limited liability for limited partners. I don't see how they could be, since that in turn seems equivalent to a transferable contract that pays a share of firm income and is a particular sort of claim against the firm's assets upon liquidation. There's nothing wrong with that.
