Corporations are People?

[Patooka]

Do corporations have social security numbers?

 

[NoHolyCows]

(i.e., club, church, association, lodge, gang, neighborhood watch, cult, Elvis Presley Fan Club, business, family -- any group not incorporated -- and in some cases they exist only a short time. Even a one-night party, wedding, gathering for entertainment -- maybe a very short life-span, and one "leader" of the group might be imposing something unwanted upon others who are submissive to the leadership of the group) -- these all have 1st Amendment rights, but not a corporation? why?

You’re right that groups of individuals—whether formal or informal—retain First Amendment protections. That’s because the Constitution protects individuals acting in association. When people form a club, attend a party, or gather at a church, they are still exercising individual rights to speech, assembly, and religion.

But a corporation is not just a group of people casually associating—it’s a legal entity created by the state, with its own rights, obligations, and legal identity separate from the individuals inside it. It exists not for expression, but for commerce, and it’s structured to shield individuals from liability, extend legal life indefinitely, and enable capital accumulation.

The question isn’t whether the people in a corporation have rights—they do. The issue is whether the corporation itself, as a separate entity, should have the same political speech rights as a natural person, including the ability to spend unlimited money to influence elections. That goes beyond the protections afforded to expressive gatherings like fan clubs or weddings. It introduces institutional power and scale into the political process in a way those other examples do not.

So it’s not about denying rights to groups—it’s about recognizing that granting full political rights to powerful, state-chartered economic entities isn’t the same as protecting human beings associating and speaking freely.

What "political power"? If this entity (corporation) is granted some special political power, then perhaps it should have some special conditions imposed onto it.

The “political power” being referred to isn’t something formally granted by the state—it’s the practical power corporations exercise by virtue of their financial resources, used to influence elections, legislation, and public discourse. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision allowed corporations to spend unlimited funds on independent political expenditures, which gives them disproportionate influence over the political process compared to individual citizens. That is political power—gained not by law, but by scale and access.

But that's also true of an INDIVIDUAL or even NON-corporate group which might have been granted some political power by the state. Whoever (group or individual, corporate or non-corporate) which is granted some political power should probably be subject to some conditions which put limits on that power.

It’s true that any entity—corporate, non-corporate, or individual—could be subject to reasonable limits if granted governmental power. But in this case, corporations were not granted political power by the state—they were allowed to acquire it through unlimited financial expenditures, under the Citizens United ruling. This differs from public offices or commissions, where power is explicitly delegated and regulated. The concern is that corporations gained a form of political influence that the Constitution never intended for artificial entities, and without the kind of accountability or democratic input that typically comes with delegated authority.

If the local women's club is granted some special political power by the state, then that non-corporate club should probably have conditions imposed onto it concerning its possible use of that power.

Agreed in principle. Any group given formal authority by the state should be subject to oversight. But again, local clubs and informal associations aren’t using massive financial power to influence federal elections or flood airwaves with campaign ads. Corporations, by contrast, can spend millions in political advertising, shaping the electoral environment in ways grassroots groups simply can’t. That’s why the comparison breaks down—it’s not about theoretical “power granted” but about real-world impact and scale.

So this still does not explain why a corporation per se is not "people" and has no 1st Amendment rights.

The individuals within a corporation absolutely do have First Amendment rights. But the corporation itself is not a natural person—it is a legal construct, created by the state, that exists separately from its shareholders, employees, or leadership. It doesn’t vote, die, or hold beliefs—it’s a mechanism for organizing capital and managing liability. The Constitution was written to protect the rights of individuals, not legal entities designed for economic activity. That doesn’t mean corporations can’t speak at all—but it does mean that giving them the same speech rights as people in the political arena raises serious concerns about fairness, scale, and accountability.

By this standard you're also making ANY group into non-people which was granted some power.

Not quite. Groups of people, like clubs, churches, unions, or associations, are protected because they’re made up of natural persons exercising their rights in concert. The distinction is not whether a group has some influence, but whether it is a legal person with institutional structures and financial mechanisms that amplify its voice far beyond what any group of citizens can match. That’s what separates a corporation from a club. The issue isn’t power in theory—it’s disproportionate power in practice, wielded in a way that can distort democratic outcomes.

And most corporations are not granted any special political power, and so they are no different than other non-corporate groups and should be entitled to the same Constitutional rights.

While most corporations don’t exercise political power directly, the concern isn’t about the small local business—it’s about the legal precedent that allows any corporation to spend unlimited money influencing elections. That includes mega-corporations with global resources. The constitutional issue isn’t whether small or non-political companies deserve protection—it’s that the ruling opened the door for the wealthiest corporate actors to dominate political messaging, not as a group of citizens, but as entities wielding capital to protect their interests.

No more so than a corporation.

The key distinction isn’t that churches or PTAs can never act coercively—it’s that their primary purpose is civic, communal, or expressive. Their existence is grounded in associational and expressive rights: worship, education, community organization. In contrast, a corporation’s primary function is commercial—it’s structured to generate profit, not foster democratic participation or expression. That purpose matters when we assess what kind of constitutional protections are appropriate.

How do churches and PTAs represent the constitutional rights of their members acting in concert any more than most corporations?

Because churches and PTAs are often directly governed by members, operate on democratic principles, and exist primarily to express collective values or serve public functions. A church service, a PTA meeting, or a club vote are examples of actual civic participation by individuals. Most corporations, especially large ones, aren’t democratically controlled by their members (i.e., shareholders or employees). Political decisions are made by a small leadership tier, often with no input or accountability to the broader body of people within the corporation.

A church or PTA can be dominated by leaders who strongly influence the lower members and exert political influence.

That can certainly happen. But the key difference is scale and accountability. If a church leader oversteps, members can leave or dissent; if a PTA becomes unrepresentative, parents can vote or speak out. In contrast, when a major corporation spends tens of millions on political advertising, there’s no meaningful democratic check from shareholders or employees. Corporate political speech isn’t an expression of collective will—it’s a strategic expenditure made by executives, often in service of private interests.

Both get in involved in political issues and can act against the wishes of the general members.

Yes, and that’s why transparency and accountability matter. But again, the First Amendment was designed to protect people, especially when they assemble for civic, religious, or expressive purposes. Extending those protections to corporations as independent political actors, with resources that can far exceed any civic group, transforms the meaning of free speech—from a safeguard of public discourse into a tool for institutional dominance.

What economic privileges? You mean everyone who gains an economic privilege is not "people"?

The issue isn’t that having an economic benefit makes someone “not a person.” The point is that corporations are not people to begin with—they are legal constructs created by state law. When we talk about corporations having “economic privileges,” we’re referring to the structural advantages built into their legal design—not incidental benefits like a tax break that an individual might receive. These privileges aren’t occasional perks—they’re core features of the corporate form.

If you gain a tax loophole, or you profit from a government program, is that not an "economic privilege"? Does this mean you lose your 1st Amendment rights, because you enjoyed an "economic privilege" from the gov't?

No—individuals who receive economic benefits do not lose their First Amendment rights. But the analogy doesn’t hold, because individuals already possess rights as natural persons under the Constitution. Corporations, by contrast, don’t inherently have those rights—they are given limited constitutional protections only when necessary to protect the rights of the individuals behind them. Granting full political speech rights to a state-created legal tool goes beyond that purpose and creates a pathway for economic power to overwhelm democratic dialogue.

the loan-forgiveness granted to some students but not to others who borrowed and had to pay it back? you mean the ones granted the loan forgiveness cease to be "people" because they acquired an economic privilege from the gov't which others did not acquire?

This analogy misunderstands the argument. People who benefit from programs are still people because they are natural persons—the bearers of rights under the Constitution. The point being made is not that “economic privilege” removes personhood—it’s that corporations were never people in the first place. They are granted special legal treatment—like limited liability, indefinite lifespan, and separation of ownership and control—precisely because they are not people. These design features enable corporations to amass wealth and influence in ways that individuals cannot, which is why their political power raises separate constitutional concerns.

You're still not explaining what puts corporations into some special category which deprives them of their "people" status and thus makes them ineligible to have 1st Amendment rights.

Here’s the clear answer: corporations don’t have “people” status because they are not people. They are artificial legal entities, created by filing paperwork under state law, and they exist only because the government grants them legal standing. Their rights are not “deprived”—they are not inherent. Courts sometimes grant corporations certain rights instrumentally—to protect property, contracts, or sometimes speech—but those rights are limited and conditional, not universal like they are for humans.

The concern in Citizens United is that the Court expanded corporate rights beyond protecting individuals’ interests and instead created a doctrine where the entity itself has a First Amendment right to spend unlimited money in elections—effectively amplifying institutional power over civic discourse, without the accountability, conscience, or vulnerability that individual citizens have.

That's true of many private noncorporate organizations which get involved in politics. The leaders of that organization can easily act against the will of their individual members. This does not distinguish corporate groups from non-corporate groups.

You’re right that leadership in any organization can act without perfect alignment with its members—that’s a shared risk across many group types. But what does distinguish corporations is scale, purpose, and legal structure. Most noncorporate groups—like churches, clubs, or civic associations—are organized around expressive or communal goals, often with some form of democratic or participatory input. Corporations, in contrast, are created explicitly for profit, are often hierarchically controlled by boards and executives, and make political decisions based on fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value, not to represent collective expression. That’s a meaningful legal and functional difference.

The free speech and free assembly and free press rights of both -- corporate and non-corporate groups -- are still guaranteed to those groups.

The First Amendment protects people, not entities. Sometimes, rights are extended to organizations to protect the individuals within them. For example, a press organization is protected because it’s made up of journalists expressing ideas. But when corporations themselves are granted independent constitutional rights, particularly in the political sphere—as in Citizens United—it’s not about protecting the speech of individuals within the organization. It’s about giving the entity itself the ability to expend unlimited funds to influence political outcomes, with no requirement that those actions reflect the will of shareholders, employees, or the public. That extension is far broader and more consequential than protections for expressive or associational groups.

That some are corporations does not mean they aren't people entitled to the same 1st Amendment rights as non-corporate groups.

Corporations aren’t people—they are legal entities with no consciousness, no vote, and no citizenship. The individuals involved in a corporation do have First Amendment rights and can exercise them freely. But the corporation itself, as an artificial structure created for economic purposes, is not entitled to the same political rights as natural persons. That’s not about punishing corporations—it’s about preserving democratic integrity, so that political speech reflects the will of citizens, not the strategic expenditures of powerful entities with vastly greater resources.

NHC

 

[Swammerdami]

There are two significant differences between a typical community group and a corporation.
With the community group its leader group is elected by the members, and if the leaders say something the majority of members disagree with, they can replace those leaders.
With a corporation, the members (employees) have no say about who the leaders are, and those leaders can say what they like even if almost every employee disagrees, and can't be replaced.
NOTE: Shareholders are the ownership of the corporation, and therefore part of the corporation, so can do things about the leaders, but they are not members but owners. Also with big corporations there are usually major shareholders who choose the leaders who reflect what they want and believe.

This is the key point. Labor unions, cooperative community organizations, non-profits like the Girl Scouts -- these are all organizations of PEOPLE for the benefit of PEOPLE. Human society should be intended to serve the needs of PEOPLE.

It is ignorant to make similar claims about Corporations.

There are cases where almost all Board members, top executives and major stockholders had one stance on a political issue, but "out of fiduciary duty" the corporation took the OPPOSITE stance!

BTW, what does the user name "Lumpenproletariat" signify?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

If corporations were people they would be taxed on their revenues, not just their profits.

No they wouldn't. They would be taxed the same as other "people" -- the same as non-corporate businesses and independent contractors and entrepreneurs, who are all taxed on their profits, not on their revenues.

 

[NoHolyCows]

If corporations were people they would be taxed on their revenues, not just their profits.

No they wouldn't. They would be taxed the same as other "people" -- the same as non-corporate businesses and independent contractors and entrepreneurs, who are all taxed on their profits, not on their revenues.

You’re right that businesses—corporate or not—are taxed on profits, not gross revenue. But the original point wasn’t a call for taxing corporations differently; it was exposing the hypocrisy in pretending corporations are “people” when it’s convenient, and not when it’s inconvenient.

If corporations want to be treated as “people” for First Amendment rights—spending unlimited money to influence elections—they should be held to the same standards of accountability and burden that real people face across the board. But they’re not. Real people can’t shield themselves from liability the way corporations do. Real people don’t have indefinite legal life, unlimited fundraising capacity, or armies of lobbyists writing the tax code to engineer loopholes.

So no—this isn’t about how taxes are calculated. It’s about how the system has been rigged to let corporations play both sides: they claim personhood to buy influence, then retreat into their artificial shell when it’s time to accept the consequences or pay their fair share.

If you’re going to argue that corporations deserve the same rights as people, you also have to accept that they should carry the same responsibilities. Otherwise, it’s not a principle—it’s just a power grab dressed up in constitutional language.

NHC

 

[ZiprHead]

If corporations were people they would be taxed on their revenues, not just their profits.

No they wouldn't. They would be taxed the same as other "people" -- the same as non-corporate businesses and independent contractors and entrepreneurs, who are all taxed on their profits, not on their revenues.

I'm a "people" and I'm taxed on my revenue.

What is other "people"? Are some "people" better or differant than other "people"? And if so, where do I find this allowable in the constitution?

 

[Harry Bosch]

If corporations were people they would be taxed on their revenues, not just their profits.

No they wouldn't. They would be taxed the same as other "people" -- the same as non-corporate businesses and independent contractors and entrepreneurs, who are all taxed on their profits, not on their revenues.

I'm a "people" and I'm taxed on my revenue.

What is other "people"? Are some "people" better or differant than other "people"? And if so, where do I find this allowable in the constitution?

You’re taxed on your income - deductions. No one is taxed based on gross revenue.

 

[ZiprHead]

You’re taxed on your income - deductions. No one is taxed based on gross revenue.

Income is gross revenue.

 

[steve_bank]

Hey Lumpy, where you been?

The Citizens United Supreme Court case did not grant corporations new individual rights, but rather interpreted existing First Amendment rights to extend to associations of individuals, like corporations, in the context of political speech and spending. The court reasoned that individuals' right to free speech is not lost when they form a corporation, so corporations can spend money on political advertising without restrictions.

Interpretation of the decision meant political financing and political speech by business could not be restricted by the state.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

small non-profit corporation = NOT "PEOPLE"
(e.g. philanthropic, educational organization) ?

large non-corporate business = "PEOPLE"
multimillion-dollar greedy capitalist tycoon ?


(continued from previous Wall of Text)


How do you judge who is "people" and who is not? Has the Supreme Court issued a ruling which defines who is "people" and who isn't?

Also, "How does a corporation have an opinion to express unless it is explicitly unanimous? The same can be argued about the Girl Scouts or a church or other local club."

Yes, unanimity isn’t required for a group to express a collective opinion. But here’s the difference: in . . . churches or clubs, there’s typically transparency and democratic participation.

But very often not. Certainly not in very large organizations, or local groups affiliated with a much larger organization spread across the nation or the world, where that larger group exerts power over the local affiliates. But also in a small independent cult dominated by a guru, where the members are intimidated by the leader. And also larger cults which are spread abroad and have dozens or hundreds/thousands of affiliates. Just because they're not "corporations" doesn't automatically make them transparent and democratic. Dictatorship and tyranny happens in small noncorporations also.

You can argue that the larger spread-out group is probably incorporated, but not that it therefore never has transparency or democratic participation. What about the largest corporation of all -- the nation (USA) -- it has no transparency or democratic participation? And all small local groups always do have transparency and democratic participation? No they don't -- there are many exceptions. How can you pronounce that someone has no 1st Amendment rights and isn't "people" based on this gross generalization about the kind of group they belong to?

What if that small local group is affiliated with a large national organization/corporation? Is that local affiliate entitled to be called "people" because it's transparent and democratic? and therefore entitled to 1st Amendment rights? but not the parent organization it belongs to? Isn't that small local affiliate "people"? In some cases it goes lockstep with the larger parent organization, and in other cases it opposes them. So how do you decide if that local affiliate is "people" -- it's still part of the corporate structure, but it's local and thus has "transparency and democratic participation" -- does someone take a vote to determine if they are "people" with Constitutional rights? who makes that judgment? What Supreme Court case has decided this and defined who is "people" and who is not?

How is the local NON-affiliate group "people" but not the local affiliate member group? -- it might be mainly independent and run privately but still benefits from the official incorporation. And the individual members might hardly know of the larger parent organization -- they are a small private group the same as an unaffiliated local community group having no recognized power. How is that local affiliated group not "people" entitled to 1st Amendment rights? the same as a non-affiliated group?

There are many local churches which are affiliated with a national denominational organization, and the local church-goers have no concern about the national organization and might even prefer to disconnect from it, but they don't care and so they continue for decades being affiliated, and maybe gain some economic advantage they're hardly aware of. So these locals are "people" too, aren't they? entitled to their 1st Amendment rights? Theoretically they're part of a large "corporation" -- but in reality what's the difference between these locals and some others in another church 2 blocks away which is NON-corporate?

How does that technical "corporate" label turn them into non-"people" with no 1st Amendment rights? Aren't they entitled to be protected from a hostile gov't which might want to impose some kind of censorship on them? because they're protected by the 1st Amendment?

What about a local political-action group which is affiliated with a national political party vs. another local group favoring the same national party but not officially connected? How do they differ so that the affiliated group is not really "people" and so have no 1st Amendment rights? is the latter not also entitled to the same 1st Amendment rights as the one which is officially independent but does virtually the same political-action activities? Maybe many members belong to both of them.

So the independent group does have 1st Amendment rights and the other does not? because it's not really "people"? Often there are members who are unaware of the group's affiliation with a national parent organization -- so are such members "people" because they don't know of the affiliation, while those who know of it are not "people"? so to be "people" you have to be unaware that the group you're a member of has this affiliation with a corporation? so that being protected by the 1st Amendment requires that you be ignorant of something.

A congregation might vote on a statement, and members can leave or dissent. In contrast, a corporation’s political spending is decided by executives or boards, often without . . .

Not always. You're generalizing -- there are many exceptions -- plus you're comparing a religious entity with a business entity engaged in commerce. The Citizens United case is about corporations vs. non-corporations (or about those having 1st Amendment rights vs. those not having them), not religious vs. commercial enterprises.

Some religions are corporations, or have non-profit corporate status. Many of those congregations are actually incorporated, or are officially affiliated with a corporation, even engage in commercial activities -- and so they too are not "people" (if corporations are not people but all other groups are)?

"Is United Methodist Church a corporation?"

"Is Southern Baptist Convention a corporation?"

According to Google Search the answer is:

United Methodist -- No, not a corporation. But

Southern Baptist Convention -- Yes, it is an official corporation. So some Church denominations are official corporations and others are not.

So then, Southern Baptists are NOT "people" because they're a corporation, while United Methodists ARE "people" because they're not incorporated?

Does that make sense? Southern Baptist churches have no 1st Amendment rights, but United Methodist churches do have 1st Amendment right? Is that what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they adopted the 1st Amendment?

So when those Southern Baptist congregations vote on a statement they are not really "people" and have no 1st Amendment protection? And their political spending is determined by executives, not by the congregation voting democratically. Your generalizations about corporate vs. non-corporate don't answer why those members are "people" only if they are unaffiliated, but not "people" if they're connected to a corporation.

. . . often without input from shareholders or employees—and dissenting voices have no say.

But that also describes many church congregations which have the higher-up corporate power imposed onto them. So that local congregation is not "people" and has no 1st Amendment rights? So the affiliated Baptist Church on this block is not really "people" and has no 1st Amendment rights, while the one 2 blocks away is really "people" and do have rights, because they're an independent entity? How can you arbitrarily brand some as "people" and others not "people" only because of this technical difference, when otherwise the 2 congregations may be virtually the same by any measure?

The analogy breaks down because the internal governance, purpose, and power structure of a corporation are not comparable to that of a small, voluntary civic group.

But this is a gross generalization. Those small "voluntary civic groups" also are part of a high-up corporation, in many cases. And there are many small corporations -- tens of thousands of them -- which are just as democratic as the ideal local voluntary church, or even more democratic.

You're giving no reason why the corporate entities are somehow not really "people" in comparison to non-corporations. So some corporations get huge and undemocratic, but many others do not. How do you arbitrarily cast all of them into the non-"people" category and insist that they have no 1st Amendment rights? just because they chose to incorporate? or didn't choose to dis-incorporate?

They [members of the private club] are probably not unanimous, and still that club can publish opinions held by some of the members.

That’s correct, and the law protects that kind of expression because it’s a reflection of individuals engaging in civic discourse.

But aren't corporate executives engaging in civic discourse when they make their decisions -- so why aren't they also protected by the 1st Amendment the same the private club? You said they're not "people" because the opinions are not "unanimous" -- and yet those corporate executives (maybe a minority) are also individuals engaging in civic discourse, and you're using jargon to exclude them differently into a non-"people" category. You said:

How does a corporation have an opinion to express unless it is explicitly unanimous?

And thus -- whatever the above means -- corporations are not “people” but a "legal construction" with no rights, as the collective "opinion" is imposed onto individual members in some way that non-corporate groups do not -- And yet the same is true of many NON-corporate private clubs because some dominating members who run the club choose to publish their opinions at the club's expense, while other members oppose it, so it's not unanimous which is partly what makes the corporations not "people" according to you -- that's part of your explanation why they cannot have 1st Amendment rights.

How can being unanimous be the criterion for putting them in the "people" category? or being transparent, or democratic? This does not distinguish corporate from noncorporate groups. You can't deny the "people" status to a corporation by just saying they're "explicitly unanimous" -- this jargon does not say how a corporate group becomes different than "people" and thus loses 1st Amendment rights -- it doesn't say how every corporation big or small is this non-human alien entity which has to be denied rights granted to non-corporate groups, which also run roughshod over the minority in many cases.

There might be a practical reason to divide everyone into rich and poor classes in some cases, and impose some terms onto those in the rich category. But not corporate vs. non-corporate. Whatever you're claiming is "people" or not "people" -- it's not that one is corporate and the other noncorporate.

The concern with corporations isn’t that some members disagree — it’s that the “speech” being protected is financial power used to influence elections, with no accountability . . .

No! You're grossly generalizing and exaggerating. The vast majority of corporations are not the super-rich with financial power to influence elections. There are millions of these small corporations who have virtually no financial power. Why are they not "people" also? Why should small organizations, profit and non-profit, be branded as NOT PEOPLE and therefore deprived of 1st Amendment rights? This is what you're doing if you overturn the Citizens United case -- you're branding millions of humans as NOT "PEOPLE" and depriving them of their 1st Amendment rights, though they have no more political power/influence than you or your next-door neighbor have.

The 1st Amendment gives "people" certain rights, all people -- but crusaders like Thom Hartmann hate corporations or certain rich people, and come up with an argument which says someone has no such rights because they're "not really people!" And thus would deprive millions they don't like of having 1st Amendment rights. How many of us could be deprived of our rights, subject to arbitrary arrest, to being disappeared, if all the tyrant has to do is say "Oh, but this one isn't really 'people' or isn't really a 'person' and so has no Constitutional protection."?

If you want to declare war against the Citizens United corporation and other conservative organizations which are too powerful, you should find some other category of group to target than simply ALL corporations big and small. This Supreme Court decision does not extend any special rights to corporations they did not already have. It only says we're ALL people, all groups, big and small, rich and poor.

And it rebukes a group of nutcase crusaders who tried to pull a semantic stunt by saying "Oh, but these ones are not really people!" What? You have to find a better reason that that. You can't just barge in and say, "But he's not really people -- the wording says 'people' have rights, but not these aliens who are different than us real people. We're the real people, not those ones."

Could Tyrant Trump use the same argument to defend his rounding up and disappearing political enemies? by saying "But these ones are not really 'persons' -- they're aliens undermining our country, so the 5th Amendment does not apply to them. The Constitution extends rights only to 'persons', not to these aliens. They're not our kind."


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Harry Bosch]

You’re taxed on your income - deductions. No one is taxed based on gross revenue.

Income is gross revenue.

Very true. But our taxes are not based on our income. They are based on our taxable income (income - deductions).

 

[laughing dog]

You’re taxed on your income - deductions. No one is taxed based on gross revenue.

Income is gross revenue.

Very true. But our taxes are not based on our income. They are based on our taxable income (income - deductions).

Profit is revenue less expenses. Deductions under the personal income tax don’t come close to household expenses.

 

[Harry Bosch]

You’re taxed on your income - deductions. No one is taxed based on gross revenue.

Income is gross revenue.

Very true. But our taxes are not based on our income. They are based on our taxable income (income - deductions).

Profit is revenue less expenses. Deductions under the personal income tax don’t come close to household expenses.

60% of all small businesses report break even or less in profitability. If we taxed their gross income they'd just go out of business.

51 staggering small business statistics to know in 2024 - Cin7

Did you know more than 50% of the U.S. is employed by a small business? Here are 51 small business statistics revealing the resilience of entrepreneurship.

www.cin7.com

 

[laughing dog]

You’re taxed on your income - deductions. No one is taxed based on gross revenue.

Income is gross revenue.

Very true. But our taxes are not based on our income. They are based on our taxable income (income - deductions).

Profit is revenue less expenses. Deductions under the personal income tax don’t come close to household expenses.

60% of all small businesses report break even or less in profitability. If we taxed their gross income they'd just go out of business.

Ziprhead’s point was that people are not taxed on their profits but on their revenue. You pointed out it is taxable income but taxable income in our system is not close to the notion of profit. All if which suggests that corporations are not treated like people for tax purposes,why expect them to be treated as people in other purposes?

 

[NoHolyCows]

small non-profit corporation = NOT "PEOPLE"
(e.g. philanthropic, educational organization) ?

large non-corporate business = "PEOPLE"
multimillion-dollar greedy capitalist tycoon ?


(continued from previous Wall of Text)


How do you judge who is "people" and who is not? Has the Supreme Court issued a ruling which defines who is "people" and who isn't?

You’re trying to frame this as if critics of corporate personhood are just arbitrarily deciding who counts as “people”—but that’s not what’s happening at all. The distinction isn’t about the size, wealth, or moral character of the entity—it’s about the legal nature of the entity itself.

A natural person—you, me, anyone born with rights under the Constitution—is fundamentally different from a legal person, which is a construct created by the state for practical purposes like limiting liability or organizing capital. That’s not political spin—that’s basic corporate law.

So yes, a greedy multimillionaire is still “people” under the Constitution, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. But a nonprofit corporation, no matter how small or noble, is still a legal fiction. It may be deserving of protection in specific contexts—like due process or contract rights—but it does not automatically inherit full constitutional personhood, especially in the realm of political speech.

You ask if the Supreme Court has defined “who is people.” It has—over and over again. Natural persons are the rights-bearing individuals the Constitution was written to protect. When courts extend rights to corporations, it’s instrumental, not absolute—done to safeguard the people involved, not because the corporation itself has a soul, a vote, or a voice.

What Citizens United did was blur that line—treating an economic tool like a living citizen in the political arena. That’s not protecting liberty; it’s rewriting it in favor of power and scale.

So no, this isn’t about punishing success or elevating nonprofits—it’s about recognizing that speech and democracy belong to people, not to structures built to insulate capital from accountability.

But very often not. Certainly not in very large organizations, or local groups affiliated with a much larger organization spread across the nation or the world, where that larger group exerts power over the local affiliates. But also in a small independent cult dominated by a guru, where the members are intimidated by the leader. And also larger cults which are spread abroad and have dozens or hundreds/thousands of affiliates. Just because they're not "corporations" doesn't automatically make them transparent and democratic. Dictatorship and tyranny happens in small noncorporations also.

You can argue that the larger spread-out group is probably incorporated, but not that it therefore never has transparency or democratic participation. What about the largest corporation of all -- the nation (USA) -- it has no transparency or democratic participation? And all small local groups always do have transparency and democratic participation? No they don't -- there are many exceptions. How can you pronounce that someone has no 1st Amendment rights and isn't "people" based on this gross generalization about the kind of group they belong to?

What if that small local group is affiliated with a large national organization/corporation? Is that local affiliate entitled to be called "people" because it's transparent and democratic? and therefore entitled to 1st Amendment rights? but not the parent organization it belongs to? Isn't that small local affiliate "people"? In some cases it goes lockstep with the larger parent organization, and in other cases it opposes them. So how do you decide if that local affiliate is "people" -- it's still part of the corporate structure, but it's local and thus has "transparency and democratic participation" -- does someone take a vote to determine if they are "people" with Constitutional rights? who makes that judgment? What Supreme Court case has decided this and defined who is "people" and who is not?

How is the local NON-affiliate group "people" but not the local affiliate member group? -- it might be mainly independent and run privately but still benefits from the official incorporation. And the individual members might hardly know of the larger parent organization -- they are a small private group the same as an unaffiliated local community group having no recognized power. How is that local affiliated group not "people" entitled to 1st Amendment rights? the same as a non-affiliated group?

There are many local churches which are affiliated with a national denominational organization, and the local church-goers have no concern about the national organization and might even prefer to disconnect from it, but they don't care and so they continue for decades being affiliated, and maybe gain some economic advantage they're hardly aware of. So these locals are "people" too, aren't they? entitled to their 1st Amendment rights? Theoretically they're part of a large "corporation" -- but in reality what's the difference between these locals and some others in another church 2 blocks away which is NON-corporate?

How does that technical "corporate" label turn them into non-"people" with no 1st Amendment rights? Aren't they entitled to be protected from a hostile gov't which might want to impose some kind of censorship on them? because they're protected by the 1st Amendment?

What about a local political-action group which is affiliated with a national political party vs. another local group favoring the same national party but not officially connected? How do they differ so that the affiliated group is not really "people" and so have no 1st Amendment rights? is the latter not also entitled to the same 1st Amendment rights as the one which is officially independent but does virtually the same political-action activities? Maybe many members belong to both of them.

So the independent group does have 1st Amendment rights and the other does not? because it's not really "people"? Often there are members who are unaware of the group's affiliation with a national parent organization -- so are such members "people" because they don't know of the affiliation, while those who know of it are not "people"? so to be "people" you have to be unaware that the group you're a member of has this affiliation with a corporation? so that being protected by the 1st Amendment requires that you be ignorant of something.

You’ve written a lot, but you’ve lost the plot.

No one is arguing that small groups lose First Amendment protections just because they’re affiliated with larger entities. The point isn’t that every non-corporate group is pure and democratic while every corporation is tyrannical. That’s a strawman.

Here’s what matters:

The First Amendment protects individuals, and by extension, groups of individuals expressing themselves—like churches, clubs, political action groups, and associations. These are protected because they are ultimately grounded in natural persons exercising their rights, whether or not they are affiliated, democratic, or perfectly transparent.

That’s not what’s at stake in Citizens United.

What Citizens United did was grant independent First Amendment rights to corporations as entities, not to protect the people inside them, but to allow the corporation itself—an abstract legal structure created by the state—to spend unlimited money on political influence.

That’s the line you’re ignoring. The issue isn’t whether a local church or political group has First Amendment rights—it’s whether a state-created profit-driven legal entity, with no voting rights, no conscience, and no mortality, should be treated as a rights-bearing political speaker with the same constitutional standing as a citizen.

If the Girl Scouts issue a statement, that’s individuals speaking collectively. If ExxonMobil drops $50 million into a Senate race, that’s not speech—it’s financial force, untethered from democratic accountability. That’s the difference.

No one is saying affiliation or incorporation alone disqualifies a group from protection. What we are saying is that equating artificial entities built for profit with actual people—and giving them the full power of First Amendment political expression—is a distortion of both constitutional intent and democratic fairness.

Affiliation doesn’t erase personhood. But incorporation isn’t personhood to begin with. And pretending otherwise is how we ended up with a system where money talks louder than people.

Not always. You're generalizing -- there are many exceptions -- plus you're comparing a religious entity with a business entity engaged in commerce. The Citizens United case is about corporations vs. non-corporations (or about those having 1st Amendment rights vs. those not having them), not religious vs. commercial enterprises.

Some religions are corporations, or have non-profit corporate status. Many of those congregations are actually incorporated, or are officially affiliated with a corporation, even engage in commercial activities -- and so they too are not "people" (if corporations are not people but all other groups are)?

"Is United Methodist Church a corporation?"

"Is Southern Baptist Convention a corporation?"

According to Google Search the answer is:

United Methodist -- No, not a corporation. But

Southern Baptist Convention -- Yes, it is an official corporation. So some Church denominations are official corporations and others are not.

So then, Southern Baptists are NOT "people" because they're a corporation, while United Methodists ARE "people" because they're not incorporated?

Does that make sense? Southern Baptist churches have no 1st Amendment rights, but United Methodist churches do have 1st Amendment right? Is that what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they adopted the 1st Amendment?

So when those Southern Baptist congregations vote on a statement they are not really "people" and have no 1st Amendment protection? And their political spending is determined by executives, not by the congregation voting democratically. Your generalizations about corporate vs. non-corporate don't answer why those members are "people" only if they are unaffiliated, but not "people" if they're connected to a corporation.

You’re trying to turn this into a debate about organizational paperwork rather than constitutional principle.

No one is saying that members of a religious congregation lose their First Amendment rights if their church is incorporated. That’s a complete distortion of the argument. The First Amendment protects individuals—and that protection extends to people associating together, whether in a church, nonprofit, or club, incorporated or not. The incorporation status doesn’t erase their humanity or their right to speak, assemble, or worship.

But Citizens United wasn’t about protecting people in a church from censorship. It was about whether the corporation itself—as a legal, non-human entity—has the independent right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections. That’s a very different question.

You keep bringing up churches, but Citizens United wasn’t about churches. It was about for-profit commercial corporations—entities whose structure, purpose, and governance are designed for economic power, not democratic expression.

When a church issues a statement, it’s generally understood as the expression of a community of people, even if incorporated for legal protection. When ExxonMobil or Pfizer spends tens of millions on election ads, that’s not people voting—that’s a small board of executives leveraging institutional wealth to influence public policy.

Your examples conflate associational rights of people within a structure (which are protected) with corporate personhood (which is the legal fiction expanded in Citizens United). Incorporation is a legal tool, not a declaration of personhood. And the First Amendment protects people, not tools.

So no—the Southern Baptist Convention doesn’t lose its First Amendment protections because it’s incorporated. But ExxonMobil gaining political speech rights as if it were a citizen? That’s not constitutional consistency—that’s legal opportunism wrapped in free speech language.

That’s the difference. And no amount of dodging through edge cases or Google searches changes the core issue: Citizens United shifted political power from people to entities never intended to have it.

But that also describes many church congregations which have the higher-up corporate power imposed onto them. So that local congregation is not "people" and has no 1st Amendment rights? So the affiliated Baptist Church on this block is not really "people" and has no 1st Amendment rights, while the one 2 blocks away is really "people" and do have rights, because they're an independent entity? How can you arbitrarily brand some as "people" and others not "people" only because of this technical difference, when otherwise the 2 congregations may be virtually the same by any measure?

You’re still missing the point—and at this stage, it looks less like confusion and more like intentional misdirection.

No one is branding church congregations as “not people.” That’s a strawman argument. The First Amendment protects individuals—and that protection extends to their associational expression, whether they’re part of an independent church or one affiliated with a national denomination, whether incorporated or not.

The issue isn’t affiliation. It’s not incorporation. It’s not even the existence of hierarchy.

It’s this: in Citizens United, the corporation itself—a legal structure created for commercial purposes, not for civic participation—was granted independent political speech rights, meaning it could spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, as if it were a natural person with beliefs, conscience, and citizenship.

That’s not the same as a congregation voting on a public statement. That’s not even the same as a hierarchical denomination issuing a collective position. Those are still expressions of actual people, even if the internal process isn’t perfectly democratic.

But when a multinational corporation with no human identity, no vote, and no accountability to citizens uses its massive economic engine to tilt the political playing field, that is not speech in the democratic sense. That’s institutional force, and Citizens United wrongly called it “free expression.”

So your repeated examples of churches—incorporated or not—do not map onto the kind of power that Citizens United unleashed. Churches may speak for members. Corporations speak for capital. That’s the difference, and no amount of false equivalence will erase it.

But this is a gross generalization. Those small "voluntary civic groups" also are part of a high-up corporation, in many cases. And there are many small corporations -- tens of thousands of them -- which are just as democratic as the ideal local voluntary church, or even more democratic.

You're giving no reason why the corporate entities are somehow not really "people" in comparison to non-corporations. So some corporations get huge and undemocratic, but many others do not. How do you arbitrarily cast all of them into the non-"people" category and insist that they have no 1st Amendment rights? just because they chose to incorporate? or didn't choose to dis-incorporate?

You’re trying to defend a legal fiction by pointing out exceptions, but exceptions don’t erase the rule.

Yes, there are small corporations that are democratic. No one denies that. But the Citizens United decision wasn’t about mom-and-pop shops or tiny nonprofits—it created a constitutional right for all corporations, regardless of size, purpose, or structure, to spend unlimited money on elections, as if they were natural persons.

That’s not a generalization. That’s the ruling.

The concern isn’t that small corporations exist—it’s that Citizens United erased the distinction between economic entities and human beings in the political sphere. It didn’t say, “Only democratic corporations get speech rights.” It said corporate identity doesn’t matter at all—and in doing so, it opened the floodgates for massive institutional power to drown out real human voices.

You keep asking how corporations aren’t “people.” Here’s the answer, again: because they’re not. They’re legal tools, created by filing paperwork with the state. They have no conscience, no mortality, no right to vote, no capacity to serve jury duty or be imprisoned. Their “speech” isn’t the expression of beliefs—it’s a strategic use of capital, often deployed without consent from shareholders or employees.

Yes, individuals within a corporation have First Amendment rights. But the corporation itself is not entitled to the same political freedoms as a citizen, especially when those rights are used to convert financial resources into political dominance.

You can keep pointing to edge cases, but the principle stands: the Constitution protects people, not legal constructs. Incorporation is a legal convenience—not a license to buy elections. And that’s what Citizens United turned it into.

But aren't corporate executives engaging in civic discourse when they make their decisions -- so why aren't they also protected by the 1st Amendment the same the private club? You said they're not "people" because the opinions are not "unanimous" -- and yet those corporate executives (maybe a minority) are also individuals engaging in civic discourse, and you're using jargon to exclude them differently into a non-"people" category. You said:

How does a corporation have an opinion to express unless it is explicitly unanimous?

And thus -- whatever the above means -- corporations are not “people” but a "legal construction" with no rights, as the collective "opinion" is imposed onto individual members in some way that non-corporate groups do not -- And yet the same is true of many NON-corporate private clubs because some dominating members who run the club choose to publish their opinions at the club's expense, while other members oppose it, so it's not unanimous which is partly what makes the corporations not "people" according to you -- that's part of your explanation why they cannot have 1st Amendment rights.

How can being unanimous be the criterion for putting them in the "people" category? or being transparent, or democratic? This does not distinguish corporate from noncorporate groups. You can't deny the "people" status to a corporation by just saying they're "explicitly unanimous" -- this jargon does not say how a corporate group becomes different than "people" and thus loses 1st Amendment rights -- it doesn't say how every corporation big or small is this non-human alien entity which has to be denied rights granted to non-corporate groups, which also run roughshod over the minority in many cases.

There might be a practical reason to divide everyone into rich and poor classes in some cases, and impose some terms onto those in the rich category. But not corporate vs. non-corporate. Whatever you're claiming is "people" or not "people" -- it's not that one is corporate and the other noncorporate.

You’re conflating individuals within corporations with the corporation itself—and that’s exactly the confusion Citizens United exploited.

Of course corporate executives are individuals, and of course they have First Amendment rights. No one is denying that. They can speak, vote, donate, protest, and engage in civic discourse however they want—as individuals.

But that’s not what Citizens United was about.

The ruling gave the corporation itself, as a separate legal entity, the power to spend unlimited money to influence elections—not to protect an executive’s right to speak, but to empower a non-human entity to act as if it were a citizen in the political process.

You keep asking, “Why isn’t a corporation ‘people’?” The answer is simple: because it’s not a person. It’s a state-created legal fiction, designed to organize capital and shield individuals from liability. It doesn’t vote, it doesn’t bleed, it doesn’t bear moral responsibility. It’s not “denied” rights—it never had them. Rights aren’t something you hand out to tools.

Unanimity was never offered as a requirement for group expression. It was used to highlight the fact that, in a corporation, political decisions are made by a small elite—not by the shareholders, not by the employees, not by any democratic vote. And when those decisions affect elections, they carry massive financial weight that individuals can’t possibly match.

You’re trying to collapse all groups—clubs, churches, corporations—into one category, ignoring purpose, structure, scale, and legal status. But the law itself doesn’t treat them the same. That’s why corporations get tax treatment, liability protection, and operational privileges that clubs and churches don’t.

You say the division shouldn’t be corporate vs. non-corporate—but that’s exactly what Citizens United made it: a legal decision that removed all distinctions and elevated corporations to the level of natural persons in political speech.

So here’s the line: the Constitution protects people, not property structures. And when we pretend otherwise, we don’t expand freedom—we auction it off to the highest bidder.

NHC

 

[NoHolyCows]

No! You're grossly generalizing and exaggerating. The vast majority of corporations are not the super-rich with financial power to influence elections. There are millions of these small corporations who have virtually no financial power. Why are they not "people" also? Why should small organizations, profit and non-profit, be branded as NOT PEOPLE and therefore deprived of 1st Amendment rights? This is what you're doing if you overturn the Citizens United case -- you're branding millions of humans as NOT "PEOPLE" and depriving them of their 1st Amendment rights, though they have no more political power/influence than you or your next-door neighbor have.

The 1st Amendment gives "people" certain rights, all people -- but crusaders like Thom Hartmann hate corporations or certain rich people, and come up with an argument which says someone has no such rights because they're "not really people!" And thus would deprive millions they don't like of having 1st Amendment rights. How many of us could be deprived of our rights, subject to arbitrary arrest, to being disappeared, if all the tyrant has to do is say "Oh, but this one isn't really 'people' or isn't really a 'person' and so has no Constitutional protection."?

If you want to declare war against the Citizens United corporation and other conservative organizations which are too powerful, you should find some other category of group to target than simply ALL corporations big and small. This Supreme Court decision does not extend any special rights to corporations they did not already have. It only says we're ALL people, all groups, big and small, rich and poor.

And it rebukes a group of nutcase crusaders who tried to pull a semantic stunt by saying "Oh, but these ones are not really people!" What? You have to find a better reason that that. You can't just barge in and say, "But he's not really people -- the wording says 'people' have rights, but not these aliens who are different than us real people. We're the real people, not those ones."

Could Tyrant Trump use the same argument to defend his rounding up and disappearing political enemies? by saying "But these ones are not really 'persons' -- they're aliens undermining our country, so the 5th Amendment does not apply to them. The Constitution extends rights only to 'persons', not to these aliens. They're not our kind."

You’re not defending Citizens United anymore—you’re spinning a dystopian fantasy to avoid confronting what the ruling actually did.

Let’s start with the core claim: “Most corporations are small, so denying corporations political speech rights is denying small business owners their humanity.”

That’s a false premise. Nobody is saying the individuals who own, run, or work at small corporations aren’t people. Of course they are. And they still have full First Amendment rights as individuals. They can speak, donate, publish, assemble, and protest like anyone else.

What Citizens United did was go much further. It elevated the corporation itself—an artificial legal entity—to the level of a political speaker, able to spend unlimited money influencing elections. It didn’t protect the voice of the small business owner—it legalized political megaphones for the biggest players in the economy, using the same constitutional shield as the person next door.

You say overturning Citizens United would silence millions of corporations. That’s not true. It would restore the original boundaries between people with rights and structures created to serve economic purposes. You don’t give First Amendment rights to a hammer just because a carpenter uses one. A corporation is a tool. It can be powerful, useful, even beneficial—but it is not a citizen.

You also invoke slippery slope fear tactics—suggesting that saying corporations aren’t “people” could lead to individuals being denied constitutional protections. That’s not just wrong—it’s reckless. The Constitution distinguishes clearly and consistently between natural persons and legal entities. We’ve always held that individuals are rights-bearers and that entities exist to serve legal functions, not to possess inalienable liberties.

Nobody’s rounding up citizens because we don’t let PepsiCo buy a Senate seat. That’s not tyranny—that’s preserving democratic integrity. Tyranny is when billion-dollar corporations can flood elections with money, drown out the voices of average citizens, and call it “free speech.”

You claim the decision doesn’t give corporations new rights—but that’s exactly what it did. It transformed economic power into constitutional speech, and in doing so, rewrote the First Amendment in favor of wealth, not liberty.

This isn’t a war on small business. It’s a defense of democracy from a distortion that treats capital structures as if they were conscious, rights-bearing citizens. That’s not what the Founders intended—and pretending otherwise isn’t principled, it’s convenient.

If you want to defend corporate political influence, do it honestly. But don’t wrap it in the language of freedom while ignoring the unequal power it unleashes.

NHC

 

[unapologetic]

MICKEY MOUSE IS NOT A PERSON.
Governments can decide to impose rights and responsibilities on organizations/corporations.
But they ain't people. They are not automatically entitled to the same rights as a human just because a human joined. They can not claim 1st amendment rights. The government must grant corporations any rights separately.

So the Girl Scouts has no rights? no right to free speech, to free assembly, to freely publish anything?

They have always been people, just like the local PTA is people, and the Little League, and the Moose Lodge, and the local bingo game club.

And the KKK too?
No. those are organizations, subject to a different set of laws. They contain people who can speak, publish, and assemble.
The organizations do not have 1st amendment rights. Their members do. And corporations are subject to a different set of laws than the organizations you mentioned.
I do not consider churches to be people. But the 1st amendment does. The 1st amendment does not mention corporations. SO IT EXCLUDES corporations.

Maybe they should have some conditions applied. But not because they are "NOT PEOPLE". They are people. But it's reasonable to impose conditions onto them.

They need 'conditions' specifically because they are NOT PEOPLE.

A corporation is ultimately owned by people but no more makes it a person that my owning a car makes it a person.

A corporation can legally bought and sold, but people cannot.

I might accept a corporation as 3/5 of a person.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

One quick response to this one:

MICKEY MOUSE IS NOT A PERSON.

i.e., KKK, Mouseketeers, Granny Goose Fan Club etc. = not "people"

Governments can decide to impose rights and responsibilities on organizations/corporations.

Groups (rather than individuals) are not "people"
(corporate or noncorporate)

But they ain't people. They are not automatically entitled to the same rights as a human just because a human joined. They can not claim 1st amendment rights. The government must grant corporations any rights separately.

So the Girl Scouts has no rights? no right to free speech, to free assembly, to freely publish anything?

They have always been people, just like the local PTA is people, and the Little League, and the Moose Lodge, and the local bingo game club.

And the KKK too?
No. those are organizations, subject to a different set of laws. They contain people who can speak, publish, and assemble.
The organizations do not have 1st amendment rights. Their members do. And corporations are subject to a different set of laws than the organizations you mentioned.
I do not consider churches to be people. But the 1st amendment does. ["churches" are an exception because the 1st Amendment specifically names them] The 1st amendment does not mention corporations. SO IT EXCLUDES corporations.

This "not people" hysteria gets more and more convoluted, and paranoid.

OK. You corporate-bashers here need to make up your mind about something --- Get on the same page! Some of you say other groups -- Girl Scouts, Little League, KKK, etc. -- are "people" and are covered by 1st Amendment rights. But then some of you say: No, other groups also are omitted, are not "people" because only individuals (single human persons) are "people" -- i.e., no groups are "people", but only individuals --- You need to get your story straight! Ask your Progressive Guru what the straight story is.

Is it only corporations which are not "people"?
(all other groups are "people")

Or is it that ALL GROUPS are not "people"?
(only individuals are people, but not groups (collectives))

unapologetic here says it's not just corporations, but ALL groups which are not "people" --- whereas

NoHolyCows said that it's only corporations which are not "people" -- and all other groups are "people" (Girl Scouts, KKK, Mother Goose Parade, etc.)


And, are there 2 categories of "not people" organizations? -- 1) corporations and 2) some other category subject to a different set of conditions than corporations ??



Which is it? -- This "not people" dog-whistle is B.S. if you can't agree on what "not people" means. You must base this on something other than your knee-jerk emotional hate for corporations. Just because the slogan makes you salivate does not make it the truth.



(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Another quick response:


All noncorporate groups are "people":

(NoHolyCows): The First Amendment protects individuals, and by extension, [non-corporate] groups of individuals expressing themselves — like churches, clubs, political action groups, and associations. These are protected because they are ultimately grounded in natural persons [unlike corporations] exercising their rights, whether or not they are affiliated, democratic, or perfectly transparent.

I.e., ALL GROUPS (other than corporations) are "people" entitled to 1st Amendment rights. KKK, Girl Scouts, Little League, Moose Lodge, Local Militia, Bird-Watchers Club, Creation Science Museum ----- these are "PEOPLE" and thus covered by the 1st Amendment.


So, can we get our act together? Which is it?

choice 1
ALL groups are "NOT PEOPLE" (corporate or noncorporate)
(i.e., only individuals are "people")

OR

choice 2
Noncorporate groups also ARE "PEOPLE" (and have 1st Amendment rights)
and it's only corporations which are excluded because they are "not people"

Ah! I see Swammerdami checked in above: His vote is for choice 1 above. So will he straighten out unapologetic who says all groups are not "people"?

(did I get it backwards? whatever, he says one of them above is wrong)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The point is this: If all you corporate-bashers have in common is your deep dog-whistle emotionalistic hate against corporations, and otherwise no logic or facts to explain who is "people" and who is not, then this "not people" sloganism is just as bad as the Old Southerners' prejudice against Blacks or the German Peasants' prejudice against Jews.

You need to sober up, ask some simple questions from the fire-breathing Progressive Gurus who gave you these vibes, instead of just salivating at their hate-speech slogans. Is the Girl Scouts "people" or not? How about bankers? money-lenders? the Bilderbergers? They're also "not people"? Or, what about ticket-scalpers -- there's a universally-hated group (and yet no one seems to know why). Or how about them scab Chinese auto-workers -- stealin' our jobs -- they're also "not people"?

You need to compile a list of all these "not people" scum out there who we're all supposed to hate.