Corporations are People?

[laughing dog]

But how is the corporation "not people"
anymore than the PTA is "not people"?

Stop pretending you've answered this.
No one has answered what "not people" means.

. That is a falsehood. Plenty of posters have done do. Your inability or unwillingness to understand or accept their explanations does not negate the existence of those explanations nor do your walls of word salad.

 

[Patooka]

Lumpen's arguments have appeared to have embarrassingly devolved into a gish gallop of petty semantics.

 

[NoHolyCows]

But how is the corporation "not people"
anymore than the PTA is "not people"?

Stop pretending you've answered this.
No one has answered what "not people" means.

You keep asking, “How is a corporation not people?”—as if repetition is a substitute for understanding. So let’s end the pretense.

The PTA is people. It’s a group of parents voluntarily organizing to represent themselves. When it speaks, it does so as a direct expression of its members—real individuals, with voices, votes, and rights.

A corporation is not people. It’s a legal entity created by the state, with a separate legal identity from any individual. It exists to pursue profit, not expression. Its speech is not determined democratically by its employees or shareholders—it’s decided by a small group of executives, often without any input from the people within it.

When the PTA issues a statement, it’s people expressing themselves through a shared platform. When ExxonMobil dumps $50 million into a Senate race, that’s not people talking—it’s capital speaking, with no vote, no conscience, and no accountability to the public.

And yes, this has been answered repeatedly. You’re not engaging—you’re just ignoring the answer because it doesn’t fit the narrative you want to defend. But here it is again:

“Not people” means not a natural person. Not a citizen. Not a voter. Not a rights-bearing individual. A corporation is a structure, not a human being. And giving that structure the same political rights as you or me is not equality—it’s distortion.

So stop pretending the question hasn’t been answered. It has. You just don’t like the answer.

NHC

 

[bilby]

A corporation is a way of organizing and coordinating people, but it's not a person.

A board of directors is people, but a board of directors is not a person.

Shareholders can be people, or corporations; But shareholders is not a person.

Nobody is arguing that a corporation is not people; They are arguing that a corporation is not a person.

 

[unapologetic]

TLDR


I stopped caring.

 

[ZiprHead]

But how is the corporation "not people"
anymore than the PTA is "not people"?

Stop pretending you've answered this.
No one has answered what "not people" means.

You keep asking, “How is a corporation not people?”—as if repetition is a substitute for understanding. So let’s end the pretense.

The PTA is people. It’s a group of parents voluntarily organizing to represent themselves. When it speaks, it does so as a direct expression of its members—real individuals, with voices, votes, and rights.

A corporation is not people. It’s a legal entity created by the state, with a separate legal identity from any individual. It exists to pursue profit, not expression. Its speech is not determined democratically by its employees or shareholders—it’s decided by a small group of executives, often without any input from the people within it.

When the PTA issues a statement, it’s people expressing themselves through a shared platform. When ExxonMobil dumps $50 million into a Senate race, that’s not people talking—it’s capital speaking, with no vote, no conscience, and no accountability to the public.

And yes, this has been answered repeatedly. You’re not engaging—you’re just ignoring the answer because it doesn’t fit the narrative you want to defend. But here it is again:

“Not people” means not a natural person. Not a citizen. Not a voter. Not a rights-bearing individual. A corporation is a structure, not a human being. And giving that structure the same political rights as you or me is not equality—it’s distortion.

So stop pretending the question hasn’t been answered. It has. You just don’t like the answer.

NHC

Don't bother. Lumpen probably won't read it and if he did he wouldn't understand it.

 

[NoHolyCows]

Lumpenproletariat,​

You’re asking the same question over and over while refusing to engage with the actual legal distinctions already explained. So let’s clarify it—again—but this time with sharp precision:

The PTA is not “people” in the sense of being a living human either. But the reason the PTA, a church, or a neighborhood group is protected by the First Amendment is because it is a direct extension of individuals exercising their rights together. The government protects their associational rights—because the speech, assembly, or worship comes from actual people participating.

In contrast, a corporation, especially a for-profit business, is a state-created legal entity that exists independently of the individuals involved. It’s not “people expressing themselves.” It’s a legal structure, granted rights and protections by the government—like limited liability, perpetual life, and legal personhood in contracts. When that structure spends money on political ads, it is not a collection of voices. It’s a boardroom decision, driven by fiduciary duty to maximize profit, not civic expression.

No, the phrase “independent political power held by a state-created legal entity” isn’t from a single Supreme Court footnote. It’s a plain English description of what Citizens United enabled: it allowed corporations, regardless of who’s inside them, to act as independent political agents, separate from the people behind them. That’s not “fancy wording.” It’s an accurate summary of the decision’s real-world effect—and that effect is vastly different from a parent standing up to speak at a PTA meeting.

You say “both are people groups.” That’s not a legal category. It’s vague rhetoric. The law does not treat a voluntary civic association and a multi-billion-dollar corporate entity the same way. And more importantly, giving corporations full political rights means that capital—not citizens—drives electoral power.

This isn’t about whether a group “has people in it.” It’s about whether that entity is recognized by law as a rights-bearing speaker on par with a human being. The PTA’s speech is an extension of the First Amendment rights of its members. A corporation’s Super PAC ad is a use of capital deployed by a board, not a human voice.

This is what you keep missing: the legal structure, purpose, accountability, and function of a corporation make it fundamentally different from a local community group. That’s why Citizens United is controversial—because it erased that difference, and handed constitutional political power to non-human entities.

So again—yes, people inside a corporation have rights. But the corporation itself is not a citizen, not a voter, and not entitled to shape elections with the power of a treasury. That’s the line. And you’ve been shown it repeatedly. It’s not that no one’s answered your question—it’s that you don’t like the answer.

You’re treating the phrase “legal person” as if it’s synonymous with “people” in the constitutional sense. It’s not—and that’s the root of your confusion.

Yes, under the law, corporations are treated as “legal persons”—but that designation is functional, not humanistic. It exists to allow corporations to sign contracts, hold assets, sue or be sued—not to grant them inalienable rights meant for citizens in a democracy. A “legal person” is a fiction created by the state for economic efficiency—not a flesh-and-blood rights-bearing participant in the constitutional order.

When I describe a corporation as a “structured legal entity with economic privileges,” I’m not spinning anything. That’s exactly what it is—created by law, granted privileges like limited liability and perpetual existence, and designed to pursue profit. That’s not propaganda. That’s corporate law 101.

Now let’s talk about what Citizens United actually did. It didn’t affirm the right of individuals to speak through a group. That’s already protected. What it did was say that the corporation itself, as an entity, has a constitutional right to spend unlimited money on elections. That’s not about protecting the voices of people inside the corporation—it’s about empowering the structure, the institution, the machine to act politically without individual consent or democratic accountability.

The PTA or Girl Scouts doesn’t wield institutional power created to protect capital. It doesn’t have a treasury governed by fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder returns. It doesn’t flood federal elections with dark money. And it doesn’t claim the right to act as a citizen in the political arena with no human identity behind the speech.

You’re playing a semantic shell game—saying, “corporations are made up of people, so they must be people.” But that logic makes every building, army, or football team “people.” The law draws distinctions not just based on membership, but on purpose, power, and structure. The PTA is a vehicle for civic expression. A for-profit corporation is a vehicle for accumulating wealth.

So no—saying a corporation isn’t “people” isn’t emotional. It’s a recognition of the basic legal and democratic boundary between citizen speech and institutional influence. Citizens United erased that line. You’re just pretending it was never there.

If you want to defend unlimited corporate political power, fine. But do it honestly—without pretending a treasury is a voice, or that a boardroom decision equals public discourse. Because that’s the distortion this entire argument is trying to normalize.

You’ve written a lot, but volume is no substitute for substance—and what you’ve produced is a parade of strawmen, false equivalences, and misreadings of both the law and this debate.

Let’s be clear: no one is saying “corporations are not people” in the sense that they can’t ever have legal standing. Of course corporations can own property, enter contracts, and, in some cases, sue or be sued. That’s what the term “legal person” means in corporate law. But your attempt to equate that functional legal fiction with constitutional personhood—especially in the context of political speech—is where your entire argument collapses.

What Citizens United did was not simply affirm that people in corporations have rights (which they do). It granted the corporation itself—an artificial structure created by the state—the independent right to spend unlimited money in elections. That is a massive and unprecedented expansion of constitutional protections to a non-human entity, and it erased the line between people expressing ideas and institutions exercising power.

You ask, “Where does the law say corporations are ‘not people’?” That’s a red herring. The First Amendment doesn’t say “only people can speak,” because the Framers never imagined non-human entities would be claiming equal footing in political discourse. But for over a century, courts and Congress did regulate corporate electioneering precisely because they understood that corporations are not the same as individual citizens. That’s why Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) upheld restrictions on corporate political spending—and why Citizens United had to explicitly overturn it to get the outcome it wanted.

So yes, we can draw a legal and constitutional line between a voluntary association of individuals (like a PTA, a church, or a political club) and a state-created commercial structure like Chevron or Meta. The law does it all the time. One is built to express ideas. The other is built to accumulate capital and shield investors from risk. That distinction isn’t “leftist rage”—it’s basic civic architecture.

Your analogy about the wealthy tycoon versus the corporation is also misleading. An individual spending money on speech still faces personal consequences: their name is attached to the message, they’re accountable for the content, and their influence has natural limits. A corporation, on the other hand, can spend tens of millions anonymously, shielded by layers of legal abstraction, while those inside—employees, shareholders, even customers—may have no say and no alignment with the message. That’s not free speech. That’s institutional dominance masquerading as expression.

Finally, your entire rant about “leftist demagogues” and “dog-whistle mobs” doesn’t move this conversation an inch. It’s projection dressed up as outrage. If you want to defend Citizens United, do it on the merits. But don’t pretend that calling a state-created legal tool a “person” in the context of political speech is anything other than a convenient distortion—one that gives disproportionate voice to entities that were never intended to speak in elections at all.

The phrase “corporations are not people” is not a slogan. It’s a shorthand for a legal truth: constitutional rights were designed for citizens, not artificial economic machines. You can mock that all you like—but that doesn’t make it any less true.

NHC

 

[Patooka]

Going by previous threads, im pretty certain we won't be seeing Lumpen for a few weeks when he spews another thread of insufferable word salad.

 

[Swammerdami]

But how is the corporation "not people"
anymore than the PTA is "not people"?

Stop pretending you've answered this.
No one has answered what "not people" means.

You keep asking, “How is a corporation not people?”—as if repetition is a substitute for understanding. So let’s end the pretense.

The PTA is people. It’s a group of parents voluntarily organizing to represent themselves. When it speaks, it does so as a direct expression of its members—real individuals, with voices, votes, and rights.

A corporation is not people. It’s a legal entity created by the state, with a separate legal identity from any individual. It exists to pursue profit, not expression. Its speech is not determined democratically by its employees or shareholders—it’s decided by a small group of executives, often without any input from the people within it.

When the PTA issues a statement, it’s people expressing themselves through a shared platform. When ExxonMobil dumps $50 million into a Senate race, that’s not people talking—it’s capital speaking, with no vote, no conscience, and no accountability to the public.

And yes, this has been answered repeatedly. You’re not engaging—you’re just ignoring the answer because it doesn’t fit the narrative you want to defend. But here it is again:

“Not people” means not a natural person. Not a citizen. Not a voter. Not a rights-bearing individual. A corporation is a structure, not a human being. And giving that structure the same political rights as you or me is not equality—it’s distortion.

So stop pretending the question hasn’t been answered. It has. You just don’t like the answer.

NHC

Yes. Earlier I gave the example of a corporation making an anti-human decision out of "fiduciary duty" to its stockholders. Even though not a single human, whether shareholder, executive or on board of directors, approved of the anti-human decision! If this doesn't convince Mr. L that a "corporation is not people", the referee should wave a red flag for obstinacy.

During America's Rational Era, the ban on corporations making political contributions was well enforced. Companies often got around that, to a limited extent, by encouraging top executives to contribute to politician(s) useful to that company. (This wasn't so bad: The executive might be acting in self-interest.)

PTAs, on the other hand, are NOT corporations but are specifically organized as Associations of PEOPLE. (IANAL nor a tax accountant, and will not attempt to draw a fine line between non-profit associations and non-profit corporations.)

Insisting that corporations are people is some extreme right-wing meme, no?

 

[NoHolyCows]

Going by previous threads, im pretty certain we won't be seeing Lumpen for a few weeks when he spews another thread of insufferable word salad.

We don’t “answer” his questions to his satisfaction because he keeps asking the wrong ones, built on misunderstandings of basic constitutional law and a refusal to engage with the actual holding of Citizens United. He hasn’t read the opinion—if he had, he’d know the Court didn’t say “corporations are people” in the natural sense, but that corporate identity cannot be used to limit independent political expenditures, which is a very specific and controversial expansion of First Amendment protection.

He demands a rigid definition of “people” but ignores that constitutional rights are context-specific and that legal personhood ≠ full citizenship. And his responses are filled with deflection, strawmen, and emotional rhetoric—not legal reasoning.

So no, this doesn’t look like good faith. It looks like someone who’s committed to defending a position he hasn’t fully researched and who masks that gap with volume, not substance.

NHC

 

[Patooka]

Going by previous threads, im pretty certain we won't be seeing Lumpen for a few weeks when he spews another thread of insufferable word salad.

We don’t “answer” his questions to his satisfaction because he keeps asking the wrong ones, built on misunderstandings of basic constitutional law and a refusal to engage with the actual holding of Citizens United. He hasn’t read the opinion—if he had, he’d know the Court didn’t say “corporations are people” in the natural sense, but that corporate identity cannot be used to limit independent political expenditures, which is a very specific and controversial expansion of First Amendment protection.

He demands a rigid definition of “people” but ignores that constitutional rights are context-specific and that legal personhood ≠ full citizenship. And his responses are filled with deflection, strawmen, and emotional rhetoric—not legal reasoning.

So no, this doesn’t look like good faith. It looks like someone who’s committed to defending a position he hasn’t fully researched and who masks that gap with volume, not substance.

NHC

As you Americans would say, Bless your heart" or some shit.

Fine with what I think, just in case you're asking.

 

[bilby]

So no, this doesn’t look like good faith. It looks like someone who’s committed to defending a position he hasn’t fully researched and who masks that gap with volume, not substance.

That's pretty much been his MO for years. As a rule of thumb, the factuality of his posts is inversely proportional to the number of words they contain. To save time, I just scroll (and scroll, and scroll, and scroll...) past anything he submits that's more than a couple of paragraphs, or where the first paragraph is too long to fit on my phone's screen.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

FALSE DICHOTOMY

1) corporations ("not people")
(not protected by the 1st Amendment, not having Constitutional rights)
----- vs. -----
2) noncorporations ("voluntary associations")
(protected by the 1st Amendment, having Constitutional rights)

the meaning of "Corporations are not people"

​

Stop lying -- you have not distinguished "corporations" (which have no rights) from other groups (which are "people" and have rights).


(continued from previous Wall of Text)


Some groups are corporations and some are not. You can't say how "corporations are not people" without saying whether noncorporations also are "not people" groups. So -- What about the NONcorporate groups --
are they also "not people"? YES OR NO? Which is it? Will you finally answer this? If not, don't pretend you're addressing this topic by just repeating your chant "Corporations are not people!"

Below are listed examples of the two categories of groups: 1) corporations and 2) noncorporations. No one posting responses here is comparing these 2 different kinds of groups and considering which ones are "people" and which ones "not people" -- it's time to do this comparison (if you're going to be serious), taking particular examples of the 2 groups.

Google Search question: Is the Rotary Club a corporation?

Google answer:

No, the Rotary Club is not a single corporation. Rotary International is an association of independent Rotary clubs. Each club operates autonomously, and Rotary International is an association of those clubs.

Google Search question: Is the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. a corporation?

Google answer:

Yes, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has a corporate entity called "Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), A Corporation," often referred to as "A Corp" or "A Corporation". This corporation, established in 1799, is the principle corporation of the denomination, serving as a facilitator for the management of its corporate affairs.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Purpose:
  A Corp is responsible for managing the denomination's business and financial affairs, including holding title to property and managing funds.
  
  
• Authority:
  It is accountable to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and operates under the authority granted by the General Assembly, which can alter or revoke that authority.
  
  
• Services:
  A Corp provides various services to the denomination's agencies, including the Presbyterian Mission Agency and the Office of the General Assembly, as well as supporting mid-councils and other assembly work.
  
  
• Other Corporations:
  The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) also has other corporations for specific agencies, such as the Presbyterian Foundation, Board of Pensions, and Presbyterian Publishing Corporation.

• <- ignore this fucking dot.

Google Search question: Is the United Methodist Church a corporation?

Google answer:

The United Methodist Church itself, as a worldwide denomination, is not a corporation. However, individual United Methodist churches and other entities within the denomination, like conferences, boards, and agencies, can be and often are incorporated. These local churches and other units are legal entities with their own articles of incorporation, bylaws, and other governing documents.

So for local Methodist churches, affiliated with the worldwide United Methodist denomination, that local church is a corporation, but the worldwide denomination is not. And since the corporation is "not people" and the noncorporation is "people," would that mean then that your local Methodist church down the block is "not people" and has no rights, whereas the much larger worldwide denomination is "people" and so does have 1st Amendment rights?

Google answer continued:

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• The UMC as a Denomination:
  The United Methodist Church as a whole is a connectional polity, meaning it's a structure of local churches, conferences, and other entities united by shared faith and mission. It's not a single legal entity with ownership and legal capacity in the way a corporation is.
  
  
• Local Churches and Other Units:
  Individual local churches and other units within the UMC, such as conferences and agencies, are often incorporated as non-profit religious corporations. This allows them to hold property, enter into contracts, and sue or be sued in their own names.
  
  
• Articles of Incorporation:
  When a local church or other unit incorporates, they will have their own articles of incorporation, which define their purpose, structure, and relationship to the larger denomination.
  
  
• Trust Clause:
  While local churches may be incorporated, they are also subject to a trust clause, which means their property is held in trust for the benefit of the entire denomination. This ensures that the property is used for purposes that align with the mission of the UMC.

Google Search question: Is the Mormon Church a corporation?

Google answer:

Yes, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church) is organized as a corporation, specifically a Utah corporation sole, according to the Nonprofit Law Prof Blog. It operates as a non-profit corporation. The official legal name is "Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Key Points: Utah Corporation Sole: The church is organized as a specific type of corporation in Utah, a corporation sole, which is a legal structure where the current president of the church holds all the legal title and responsibility for the church's assets and affairs. Non-Profit Status: The church operates as a non-profit organization, meaning it's exempt from federal taxes under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Historical Names: The church has had different corporate names throughout its history, including "Corporation of the Presiding Bishop" and "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," according to the Salt Lake Tribune. In 2019, the church merged the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop and the Corporation of the President into a single legal entity, named after the full title of the church. Legal Entity: The church's corporate structure is crucial for managing its vast assets, including real estate, businesses, and other investments, as well as for handling legal matters.

Google Search question: Is the Unitarian Church a corporation?

Google answer:

Yes, while the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) is a federation of autonomous churches, individual Unitarian Universalist churches themselves are often organized as corporations, particularly for legal purposes like owning property. The UUA itself was given corporate status in 1961. This means that while the local churches maintain autonomy, they are legally structured as corporations to facilitate their operations and property ownership.

So the answer is YES, the local individual Unitarian Church was always a corporation. Whereas the UUA was not earlier but became a corporation in 1961, so has been a corporation for over 60 years.


Search question: Was the Branch Davidians cult a corporation?

Google answer:

No, the Branch Davidians were not a corporation. They were a religious sect that formed as an offshoot of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The group, later led by David Koresh, developed cult-like tendencies. They were known for their charismatic leader, beliefs about the end times, and the controversial standoff with federal authorities in Waco, Texas, in 1993.

Google Search question: Was the Heaven's Gate cult a corporation?

Google answer:

No, Heaven's Gate was not a corporation. It was a religious group or movement, often referred to as a cult, founded in 1974. While the group operated a business in the early 1970s to generate funds, this was not structured as a corporation. The group's primary focus was on its religious beliefs and the eventual mass suicide of its members in 1997.

Google Search question: Is Planned Parenthood a corporation?

Google answer:

Yes, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is a corporation, specifically a non-profit corporation. It is recognized as a 501(c)(3) organization by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). This means it's a tax-exempt entity and donations to it are tax-deductible. PPFA also supports independently incorporated Planned Parenthood affiliates that operate health centers across the U.S.

So here's an assortment of different corporations and noncorporations.

Corporations ("not people" -- no 1st Amendment rights)

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
LDS Church (Mormons)
Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA)
Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)


Noncorporations ("people" -- protected by 1st Amendment rights)

The Rotary Club
United Methodist Church
Branch Davidians cult
Heaven's Gate cult


1) The first group above are corporations, so are "not people" and have no 1st Amendment rights -- no freedom of speech, press, religion, etc. (if corporations are not people).

2) While the second group above are noncorporations, so are "people" groups which do have 1st Amendment rights.

So, how do you explain this dichotomy, when you say one type is "not people" and the other is "people"? I.e., how do you place all those of the 1st type into the "not people" category and those of the 2nd type into the "people" description? How do you put the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. and Unitarian Church and the LDS Church and Planned Parenthood into the "not people" category, and what is it about these that they have no 1st Amendment rights? while the others, noncorporations -- United Methodist Church, the Rotary Club, the Branch Davidians and Heaven's Gate cults all have 1st Amendment rights and are "people"?

Is it supposed to be obvious to everyone why the Unitarians are "not people" and David Koresh/Branch Davidians is "people" who have 1st Amendment rights? How is this placement/categorizing of each group determined?

How do you know for each that it's in the "people" or "not people" category and has or does not have 1st Amendment rights, other than just by reference to their being a corporation or noncorporation? Did each group originally have its 1st Amendment rights until the time it incorporated, then lose its 1st Amendment rights at that moment? because it incorporated and became "not people"?

Where does it say in any law publication or legal document or legal precedent or Court ruling that Planned Parenthood or the Unitarian Church is "not people" and has "no 1st Amendment rights"? or where is this found in a law dictionary or taught in a law class or by a law instructor? How do you determine who or what has 1st Amendment rights, or what group is or is not "people" if you cannot cite any official statement of it in any published legal document or in case history?

Are you claiming the LDS Church was "not people" prior to Citizens United, but that the Court changed this by making LDS and the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. into "people"? who then for the first time gained 1st Amendment rights, which they did not have before?

What legal source tells you that these did not have 1st Amendment rights prior to Citizens United, but that this case changed it and gave them these new rights? so that now after Citizens United it changed and those groups now acquired 1st Amendment rights for the first time, having had no such rights before Citizens United? Why can't you name any source, i.e., legal authority, from which you learned this, or confirmed it? saying that the Branch Davidians always had 1st Amendment rights, prior to Citizens United, but that the LDS Church did not until Citizens United? at which time such rights were granted also to the LDS Church?

Did the Mormons and Unitarians hold a celebration on the occasion of Citizens United, now that their group finally became "people" instead of "not people"? Where was this change announced to these groups which prior to this had been "not people"? Were all corporations sent official notice from the Justice Dept. to give them the good news that they now had become "people" instead of "not people"? Where did you find an official gov't source or legal authority which identifies someone, e.g., corporations, as having no rights because they're "not people"? or having gained those rights after becoming "people"? or identifying which groups do and do not have such rights? or which are "not people"? or once were "not people" but then became "people" and acquired rights they didn't have before?


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

FALSE DICHOTOMY

1) corporations ("not people")
(not protected by the 1st Amendment, not having Constitutional rights)
----- vs. -----
2) noncorporations ("voluntary associations")
(protected by the 1st Amendment, having Constitutional rights)

the meaning of "Corporations are not people"

​

Stop lying -- you have not distinguished "corporations" (which have no rights) from other groups (which are "people" and have rights).


(continued from previous Wall of Text)


No one yet has explained the difference between corporations and noncorporate groups which makes one of these "not people" and thus unprotected by the 1st Amendment vs. the other which is "people" and thus covered by the 1st Amendment the same as individual humans. We need something more than just your personal grunt "Corporations are not people!" before we can pronounce that certain groups are "not people" without any 1st Amendment rights. What have you offered us other than just your personal subjective utterance presuming to inaugurate this doctrine into official status? Why can't you cite something made official in published law or legal precedent or Court Ruling?

What is your source, or what is your legal foundation for this pronouncement that groups like Planned Parenthood or the Unitarian Church never had 1st Amendment rights prior to Citizens United, because they were "not people"?

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 voluntary associations like churches or clubs, there’s typically transparency and democratic participation.

But that's true also of corporations -- the vast majority of them being very small, not the giants (which are a tiny minority). So how is that tiny group (maybe only a dozen members) not just as voluntary and democratic as the noncorporate clubs?

And what about a one-person corporation?

Google Search question: Can one individual alone become a corporation?

Google answer:

Yes, a single individual can become the sole owner and operator of a corporation, also known as a single-member corporation or one-person corporation. This individual can be the sole shareholder, director, and officer of the corporation.

How does your rule "Corporations are not people" account for this case? How is this one single member not "people"? or a "person"? And how is this one person/corporation not covered by the 1st Amendment? how is it lacking transparency and democratic participation? s/he/it has no right to free speech?

in voluntary associations like churches or clubs, there’s typically transparency and democratic participation.

What "churches"? You can't just lump all of them together as if they're all the same. Some churches, like the LDS Church, are also corporations. Is this a "voluntary association" with "transparency and democratic participation" because it's a "church"? If so, then how does this distinguish it from a corporation, since this "voluntary association" is itself also a corporation? as many other churches also are -- So then is this particular group also a "not people" type because it's a corporation, or is it in the "people" category because it's a "church" having "transparency and democratic participation"?

You're still not distinguishing the noncorporation from the corporation which is "not people" and has no rights. It's not anything you're saying, i.e., that the "people" group is more voluntary and has democracy and transparency, because most small corporations (tiny businesses) do have this, plus also some large noncorporations (United Methodist Church) are also too large to be transparent, having 10 million members, and thus too huge and cumbersome and impersonal to be democratic and transparent -- it's more similar to the large corporations than to the small local club.

A congregation might vote on a statement, and members can leave or dissent.

Likewise for most corporations, which are not the megacorps you're really complaining about. They are small groups of only a few dozen members/employees, or even fewer -- so they're all consulted and can leave or dissent.

We must amend your platitude that "corporations are not people" -- the word "corporation" must be replaced, in order for it to say what you're claiming. A correct word would be "megacorps" or "megacorp."

"Megacorps are not people" -- is the more correct wording. With this correction, we can pick up the argument.

but also: "Megagroups are not people" -- because it's not only the legal corporate nature of the group that's a problem, but just that the group is too large. The same limits needed to restrict the megacorp are also needed to restrict the megagroup -- or ANY LARGE GROUP, not just a large corporation. Even the sole proprietor is a threat, if he's a wealthy powerful tycoon. So the rule has to be that any large economic entity must be subject to some restrictions on the exercise of its power.

In contrast, a corporation’s [correction: megagroup's] political spending is decided by executives or boards, often without input from shareholders or employees — and dissenting voices have no say.

Now we're getting somewhere, with the terminology correction -- this is not about "corporations" at all, but about all the GIANT entities/groups with power. A powerful group, huge wealth, regardless whether it's a corporation.

But here too there's still a fallacy: just because the entity is rich and powerful does not mean it's "not people" -- the megacorp also is people, or a person. And it might be necessary to impose extra conditions onto someone extra powerful. I.e. onto "people" who have too much power. So it still makes no sense to say this entity is "not people" and so has to be restricted. Rather, this entity is extra powerful and so has to be restricted from misusing his/its power. People are still people, but some extra rules may be necessary if this "people" or "person" is too powerful. So saying that entity/group is "not people" is nonsensical.

Is this really about the very large (powerful?) vs. the very small insignificant groups? It's not about corporations -- your slogan could be "large groups or megacorps are not people!" and there might be some intelligibility to it, whereas "corporations are not people!" is a meaningless outburst pretending to say something important -- you can only FEEL the meaning of it, but not think it.

The "not people" rhetoric is not even about the big vs. small -- there's nothing about being huge and impersonal that automatically turns a corporation into "not people" -- all of them large and small are "people" for purposes of the law. Even those you think are EVIL and ROTTEN are still "people" -- because the "people" category includes all humans, even the ones you hate.


"Megacorps are not people"?
or "Megagroups are not people"?

Is it really the hated Megacorps, large and powerful, that this is about, especially the for-profit ones? The giants can be subject to extra restrictions. I.e., they are "people" who must comply with extra restrictions. Plus also it's normal now and then to increase the restrictions on them, i.e., add more restrictions on those "people" groups with extra size and power (not onto all "corporations" but onto very large groups). You need to stop imagining that it's the "corporations" you're uptight about -- 99% of them are no different than the local or community organizations -- churches and clubs etc. But all of them, even the megacorps, are "people" protected by the 1st Amendment, as are all groups large and small.

The analogy breaks down because the internal governance, purpose, and power structure of a corporation [correction: megagroup] are not comparable to that of a small, voluntary civic group [including even small corporations].

OK, so then maybe it's legitimate to have extra limits on the megagroups, and even on other large entities also (why not the single-owner tycoon?) which are a threat to accumulate too much power. And there's nothing wrong with advocating for still more restrictions or limits on them -- on the giants.

However, censorship is probably wrong, like a rule forbidding them from promoting a film or book or other political propaganda for distribution. Banning a book or film (Citizens United case) is not a good way to restrict the megagroups. This was ruled an infringement on their 1st Amendment rights, just as it would have been an infringement to censor any individual's or small group's publication or film production.

You cannot justify banning a book or publication or recording just because it's political or might influence voters. It is not wrong for crusaders to try to influence voters with political propaganda, however much they spend on it. Maybe the publication (or political promotion) could be taxed in some form -- this is a legitimate consideration. But not blatant censorship, as the Election Commission tried to do to the Citizens United company.


Why censorship?
because the publisher is "not people!" ? ? ? ? ?

Is this what you want? a nation where books can be banned or censored, and the only reason the book-banners need to give is that the publisher is "not people"? (How different is it to brand someone as "not people" than branding them as a "witch"?)

In the Citizens United case, the Election Commission went way beyond anything reasonable to restrict undue influence in elections. Banning a book or film is not a legitimate form of regulating political propaganda/speech. Congress or state legislatures could take this up and consider ways to make the elections more fair and counterbalance some cases of excess influence which some wealthy interests might exert onto elections.

This would be legitimate, and it might take the form of giving extra opportunity to those of lesser influence or means, so that they could be given some extra assistance by the state to exert influence, to do some additional form of campaigning or publishing or broadcasting, etc., to gain some extra exposure in the media, and so on. There are many possibilities for this, without the need for blatant censorship.

And this effort to counterbalance the influence from wealthy interests has to be seen as NOT something that would EQUALIZE everything, but only tip the scales somewhat back toward the favor of those of lesser means, so their chances of success are improved, not so that the whole process is made 100% fair and equal. Rather, the process is to be improved, or tilted toward favoring the less powerful voices to have a better chance.


A straightforward rule everyone understands:
Don't censor or suppress political speech!

But we should draw the line at that point where those publishing or propagandizing are suppressed and their product confiscated, impounded, banned, censored, silenced, disappeared, seized, destroyed -- any suppression which cancels the propaganda from being presented, destroying the communication of it to the intended audience. No, FIND SOME POSITIVE WAY to tip the scales toward helping those of lesser means be able to make their voice heard in the election campaigning -- to improve their chances. NOT A NEGATIVE WAY, of suppressing or silencing someone's voice. NO ONE'S VOICE should ever be silenced, even that of the more wealthy or powerful.

No one should ever be singled out as needing to be suppressed or silenced in any form, or shut down from publishing their ideas, their theories, their proposition for change, as long as they're not urging something criminal. There should be no exception to this -- election time should not be made a special-case exception as a period when censorship is allowed and voices can be silenced for some reason.


Find an alternative to censorship.

This does not prevent some regulation on the free speech or propaganda, but only imposes the qualifier that the regulation cannot be censorship per se. Within the parameter of no censorship or suppression, there can be some forms of regulation which give aid to those campaigners of lesser means, to increase their chance of success in a contest against a megacorp or other powerful interests.

They 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 [of a noncorporate group or club] because it’s a reflection of individuals engaging in civic discourse.

But that's also the case for the megacorps, or all corporations big and small, which also are "people" protected by the law, having 1st Amendment rights, like freedom of speech and press, and who also engage in civic discourse. Just because the group is large and is officially incorporated does not mean they aren't "engaging in civic discourse" and free speech protected by the Constitution. They might be restricted in some cases because they're so large and powerful, but not because they're "not people" or because they're corporations per se.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Harry Bosch]

Amigo: do you have a pithy original thought that you would like to discuss regarding this issue? Sorry, I’m interested in the topic. But I’m not going to read someone else’s treatise whom I can’t debate with.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I am not going to read walls of text that do not respond to substantive posts in the thread.

 

[ZiprHead]

Amigo: do you have a pithy original thought that you would like to discuss regarding this issue? Sorry, I’m interested in the topic. But I’m not going to read someone else’s treatise whom I can’t debate with.

Everything he's brought up has already been addressed and shown to him to be false. Lumpy doesn't address the points others have made, he just repeats, at great length, his first points and claims he won.

He's by far the most disingenuous debater on this forum. Dunning Kruger in real life. He's not here to learn. He's here to pontificate.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

FALSE DICHOTOMY

1) corporations ("not people")
(not protected by the 1st Amendment, not having Constitutional rights)
----- vs. -----
2) noncorporations ("voluntary associations")
(protected by the 1st Amendment, having Constitutional rights)

the meaning of "Corporations are not people"

​

Stop lying -- you have not distinguished "corporations" (which have no rights) from other groups (which are "people" and have rights).


(continued from previous Wall of Text)


Who here has explained why the cult of David Koresh (or any other noncorporation) is/was "people" with 1st Amendment rights, but Joseph Smith's LDS Church (or any other corporation) is "not people" having no 1st Amendment rights? Give the date or number of the post where this was answered, or quote from it so we can judge if this was answered. Where did they answer it? in the earlier posts? Where have they named a particular example of a corporation and explained how that group is "not people" in comparison to another (noncorporate) group which is "people" and has 1st Amendment rights?

Don't just keep repeating that this has been answered -- identify the post which answered it, quote from it

The concern with corporations [correction: megagroups] isn’t that some members disagree — it’s that the “speech” being protected is financial power used to influence elections, . . .

Even if that's true in some cases (NOT MOST cases of corporations), there are rules limiting that influence regardless of Citizens United. This case did not eliminate regulation of megacorps or their influence on elections. Even if it modified some regulations, plenty of those rules remain, to control the influence on elections, because megacorps like individual humans are "people" which society regulates as needed. Even after this case there are regulations, exerted by Congress and the Executive. The Court ruling was only that the censorship is not the right form of regulation, as it violates the 1st Amendment.

The concern with corporations [correction: megacorps] isn't that some members disagree -- it's that the "speech" being protected is financial power used to . . .

You mean someone with financial power has no free speech protection? or shouldn't have? Why not? Why shouldn't they have the same free speech protection as anyone else? And even if some special conditions are imposed on them to limit their financial power, how does that mean they're "not people"? or that they don't have 1st Amendment rights? They're still entitled to free speech and press even though they have financial power. Where in any law or legal precedent or Court Ruling was it ever said that those with "financial power" are "not people" or have no 1st Amendment rights?

. . . power used to influence elections, with no . . .

There's nothing wrong with influencing elections, or wanting to influence them. You're entitled to spend your money -- or the group is entitled to spend its money -- on influencing elections, i.e., influencing voters to change their vote. This should not be treated as something derogatory, making them "not people" or not having 1st Amendment rights. This would be to deny rights to someone (to try to influence elections) who are mostly small and have tiny influence on anyone. Again, you're imagining that ALL corporations are huge giants manipulating tiny weak minorities, when the truth is that the vast majority of corporations have no more power than the local Rotary Club. Probably less.

. . . with no accountability to the public and often not even to the individuals within the corporation [correction: megacorp].

Again you're describing only the giant megacorps.

Yes it's true that the giants generally have more power in the social structure, but even so there's plenty of non-accountability throughout society, vast nonaccountability everywhere, in all kinds of groups big and small, corporate and noncorporate, and all of them are "people" groups with 1st Amendment rights. It's fine to crusade for more accountability in general, but what does that have to do with being "not people"? Other groups too are non-accountable to the public and to their individual members, and yet they are NONcorporate groups -- churches, clubs, fraternities. No one is explaining why those wouldn't also be in the "not people" category along with megacorps.

-----​

stop lying and falsely claiming this has been explained by someone. If non-accountability is the reason corporations are "not people," then why aren't many other groups (NONcorporations) also "not people"? You know it's not true that ONLY CORPORATIONS are nonaccountable.

-----​

If being nonaccountable makes a group "not people," then you have to explain why it's only the corporations which are "not people" -- why not also other large groups which become impersonal and are run by a tiny elite? (E.g., the Southern Baptist Convention is not a corporation, and yet it's very large (probably the largest U.S. Protestant denomination. So, being a noncorporation, are you saying it is fully "accountable" to the public and has no "financial power" to promote its interests, compared to a local Unitarian Church which is incorporated?) So, why do you say "corporations are not people"? but a large noncorporate Church denomination is "people" and so is democratic and more accountable?

If you can't explain what your "not people" outburst means, and you don't know how it applies to any particular case or facts, it shows you don't understand why you're claiming corporations are "not people" -- which means this is just an impulse or a knee-jerk spasm that comes from inside you somewhere, probably an emotional expression of hate or anger against corporations which you need to express in order to release some built-up pressure or rage against certain corporations which you or a loved one had a bad experience with.

If you need sympathy to help in your dealing with these emotions, maybe some counseling would help. But name-calling -- "You're not people!" -- and depriving someone of their Constitutional rights is hardly an appropriate way to deal with your inner emotional tensions you can't control or understand. More appropriate would be to determine the origin of these emotions, and seeking help to cope with them.

That's not protected to safeguard personal liberty; it’s protected to expand institutional leverage.

Each entity covered by 1st Amendment protection is entitled to that protection regardless how you judge their motivation for wanting that protection, such as whether they want to "expand" their leverage -- ALL the political players (or 90% of them) are trying to expand themselves more and more, as basic to the power struggle all of them are engaged in.

Whether they "expand" or contract -- after the dust from Citizens United has settled, there still remain limits on political influence of megacorps (or the extra large groups) which is what this is really about -- not all corporations per se. If there's a need to make the megacorps more accountable or democratic, you can promote additional restrictions on them, and even on other large entities (that are NOT corporations), including individuals (tycoons), who might exert too much power -- (but probably not censorship, as the FEC tried to do) -- and again the restrictions are not needed for corporations generally but only the megacorps. Because 99% of corporations are irrelevant in this regard, having no more influence than the local lemonade stand.

This particular case was really about film-banning, or censorship, similar to book-banning. This was probably a bad regulation, or a case of overreach by the Election Commission. However, even if the film producer Citizens United acted wrongly in circulating their movie, and needed to be curtailed -- you could argue the case -- it's not because this corporation was "not people" and so had no 1st Amendment rights. Rather it arguably would be because these "people" (or this "person" Citizens United) acted contrary to some fair-election rules. That's how a Left-wing Court probably would have ruled.

So the Commission tried to enforce its rules -- which probably should also apply to any NON-corporations doing the same thing, and so the case had nothing to do with the incorporation or the "people" or "not people" status of the film producer. And saying the film should be banned because the producer is "not people" never made any sense, and no one yet has made any sense of this nutcase argument that someone is "not people" -- it still is nothing but a Left-wing outburst against megacorps, a dog-whistle slogan to the mindless mob, with nothing of substance legally.


Is censorship the only remedy you can think of?

You should be able to figure out better forms of controlling the power of the giants (the megacorps, not "corporations" of every kind -- most of which are not megacorps (99% of them) and have no such power). No doubt there are ways to improve the performance of the Election Commission so it could better regulate the giant players. Its attack on Citizens United was probably wrong, clumsy and misguided, as censorship (book-banning and film-banning) is not a good way to make elections more fair. Any person, group, corporation big or small should have the right to publish political propaganda, even during election time. Free speech and free press are so important and basic that virtually any censorship of political propaganda is out of bounds.

It's healthy for democracy that groups other than only the candidates be allowed to publish political propaganda (as this case was about). This bad decision by the Election Commission -- censoring political propaganda -- is a greater threat to democracy than the large megacorps spending too much on the propaganda. Even wrong-headed propaganda is educational, and there is no net danger to democracy for the voting public to be exposed to it, even if the propaganda contains erroneous content.


Stupid voters need censorship?
FEC protection to shield them from propaganda?

You are wrong to dismiss the mass of voters as idiots who cannot judge political propaganda. You're wrong to downgrade them to an inferior class incapable of making intelligent decisions as voters. Stop pretending that you're superior to them and qualified to judge what propaganda is healthy for them to be exposed to!

If you really have such contempt for all voters, such that censorship is needed to protect them from voting stupidly, then why do you want to "get out the vote"? increase voter participation? If you really believe the voters are a mass of idiots who need censorship to protect them from being wrongly influenced, then you should favor reducing the voters to only the more educated classes, or some other screening to weed out the more ignorant ones.

The real danger is entrenchment of the current regime: With censorship as its weapon, the current faction in power can seize on the regulation to censor dissenting political publications, giving partisan favor to the propaganda they agree with and banning only the propaganda they oppose for partisan reasons. It's better for these regulators (acting as agents for the current Administration?) to keep hands off any form of censorship, banning political or controversial propaganda -- (with proper exception for anything criminal).

What might be legitimate instead would be some form of "reality check" review and assessment of such propaganda -- how about grand jury review of election propaganda and publication or announcement of the jury's findings. Such factual investigation and published information would be based on the premise that the masses of citizens are not idiots but are capable of good judgement as MORE information (not less) is presented to them. This would serve to counterbalance deceptive and false propaganda by publishing a refutation of it, so that counter-argument rather than censorship is the proper way to respond to the deceptive propaganda.

That’s not protected to safeguard personal liberty; it’s protected to expand institutional leverage.

What does that mean? 1st Amendment protection is wrong unless it's done for the correct reason? You have a Papal Bull dictating what is the proper/improper motive or reason for 1st Amendment protection in this or that case? What does "expand institutional leverage" mean? = expand someone's power? Whose? Aren't those not in power entitled to publish propaganda to promote their crusade? "expand" their influence or power, or their opportunity to spread their cause to others and even to win power away from the current regime by legal means?


To EXPAND one's influence (or "leverage")
("expand institutional leverage") -- is this always wrong?

"institutional" vs. what? vs. personal, individual?

You mean someone is promoting "institutional" power? Is that bad? Anything "institutional" is unhealthy? dangerous to society? unwholesome? HOW? according to who?

Is it the Pope? Trump's Supreme Court? who says this "institutional leverage" is a threat to us?

And so it must be CENSORED? Crack down on those trying to promote something "institutional"??
No, here's a better idea -- promote the alternative, the personal or individual, or whatever the alternative to "institutional" is. If something being published is dangerous or wicked, then find ways to publish something else which would be better, or not dangerous or wicked.

Whoever those dangerous wicked people are, you can't deny them 1st Amendment protection only because you want to keep them out of power per se -- stop them from expanding (and thus entrench your faction or regime instead of theirs). No, you can defeat the opposition through proper competition in the social debating process, not through censoring the opposition. The publishers of the offensive political propaganda are entitled to promote their agenda and their power -- acquiring more power is not inherently wrong if it's done by publishing political propaganda which isn't criminal (or inciting to crime).


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[NoHolyCows]

FALSE DICHOTOMY

1) corporations ("not people")
(not protected by the 1st Amendment, not having Constitutional rights)
----- vs. -----
2) noncorporations ("voluntary associations")
(protected by the 1st Amendment, having Constitutional rights)

the meaning of "Corporations are not people"

​

Stop lying -- you have not distinguished "corporations" (which have no rights) from other groups (which are "people" and have rights).


(continued from previous Wall of Text)


No one yet has explained the difference between corporations and noncorporate groups which makes one of these "not people" and thus unprotected by the 1st Amendment vs. the other which is "people" and thus covered by the 1st Amendment the same as individual humans. We need something more than just your personal grunt "Corporations are not people!" before we can pronounce that certain groups are "not people" without any 1st Amendment rights. What have you offered us other than just your personal subjective utterance presuming to inaugurate this doctrine into official status? Why can't you cite something made official in published law or legal precedent or Court Ruling?

What is your source, or what is your legal foundation for this pronouncement that groups like Planned Parenthood or the Unitarian Church never had 1st Amendment rights prior to Citizens United, because they were "not people"?

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 voluntary associations like churches or clubs, there’s typically transparency and democratic participation.

But that's true also of corporations -- the vast majority of them being very small, not the giants (which are a tiny minority). So how is that tiny group (maybe only a dozen members) not just as voluntary and democratic as the noncorporate clubs?

And what about a one-person corporation?

Google Search question: Can one individual alone become a corporation?

Google answer:

Yes, a single individual can become the sole owner and operator of a corporation, also known as a single-member corporation or one-person corporation. This individual can be the sole shareholder, director, and officer of the corporation.

How does your rule "Corporations are not people" account for this case? How is this one single member not "people"? or a "person"? And how is this one person/corporation not covered by the 1st Amendment? how is it lacking transparency and democratic participation? s/he/it has no right to free speech?

in voluntary associations like churches or clubs, there’s typically transparency and democratic participation.

What "churches"? You can't just lump all of them together as if they're all the same. Some churches, like the LDS Church, are also corporations. Is this a "voluntary association" with "transparency and democratic participation" because it's a "church"? If so, then how does this distinguish it from a corporation, since this "voluntary association" is itself also a corporation? as many other churches also are -- So then is this particular group also a "not people" type because it's a corporation, or is it in the "people" category because it's a "church" having "transparency and democratic participation"?

You're still not distinguishing the noncorporation from the corporation which is "not people" and has no rights. It's not anything you're saying, i.e., that the "people" group is more voluntary and has democracy and transparency, because most small corporations (tiny businesses) do have this, plus also some large noncorporations (United Methodist Church) are also too large to be transparent, having 10 million members, and thus too huge and cumbersome and impersonal to be democratic and transparent -- it's more similar to the large corporations than to the small local club.

A congregation might vote on a statement, and members can leave or dissent.

Likewise for most corporations, which are not the megacorps you're really complaining about. They are small groups of only a few dozen members/employees, or even fewer -- so they're all consulted and can leave or dissent.

We must amend your platitude that "corporations are not people" -- the word "corporation" must be replaced, in order for it to say what you're claiming. A correct word would be "megacorps" or "megacorp."

"Megacorps are not people" -- is the more correct wording. With this correction, we can pick up the argument.

but also: "Megagroups are not people" -- because it's not only the legal corporate nature of the group that's a problem, but just that the group is too large. The same limits needed to restrict the megacorp are also needed to restrict the megagroup -- or ANY LARGE GROUP, not just a large corporation. Even the sole proprietor is a threat, if he's a wealthy powerful tycoon. So the rule has to be that any large economic entity must be subject to some restrictions on the exercise of its power.

In contrast, a corporation’s [correction: megagroup's] political spending is decided by executives or boards, often without input from shareholders or employees — and dissenting voices have no say.

Now we're getting somewhere, with the terminology correction -- this is not about "corporations" at all, but about all the GIANT entities/groups with power. A powerful group, huge wealth, regardless whether it's a corporation.

But here too there's still a fallacy: just because the entity is rich and powerful does not mean it's "not people" -- the megacorp also is people, or a person. And it might be necessary to impose extra conditions onto someone extra powerful. I.e. onto "people" who have too much power. So it still makes no sense to say this entity is "not people" and so has to be restricted. Rather, this entity is extra powerful and so has to be restricted from misusing his/its power. People are still people, but some extra rules may be necessary if this "people" or "person" is too powerful. So saying that entity/group is "not people" is nonsensical.

Is this really about the very large (powerful?) vs. the very small insignificant groups? It's not about corporations -- your slogan could be "large groups or megacorps are not people!" and there might be some intelligibility to it, whereas "corporations are not people!" is a meaningless outburst pretending to say something important -- you can only FEEL the meaning of it, but not think it.

The "not people" rhetoric is not even about the big vs. small -- there's nothing about being huge and impersonal that automatically turns a corporation into "not people" -- all of them large and small are "people" for purposes of the law. Even those you think are EVIL and ROTTEN are still "people" -- because the "people" category includes all humans, even the ones you hate.


"Megacorps are not people"?
or "Megagroups are not people"?

Is it really the hated Megacorps, large and powerful, that this is about, especially the for-profit ones? The giants can be subject to extra restrictions. I.e., they are "people" who must comply with extra restrictions. Plus also it's normal now and then to increase the restrictions on them, i.e., add more restrictions on those "people" groups with extra size and power (not onto all "corporations" but onto very large groups). You need to stop imagining that it's the "corporations" you're uptight about -- 99% of them are no different than the local or community organizations -- churches and clubs etc. But all of them, even the megacorps, are "people" protected by the 1st Amendment, as are all groups large and small.

The analogy breaks down because the internal governance, purpose, and power structure of a corporation [correction: megagroup] are not comparable to that of a small, voluntary civic group [including even small corporations].

OK, so then maybe it's legitimate to have extra limits on the megagroups, and even on other large entities also (why not the single-owner tycoon?) which are a threat to accumulate too much power. And there's nothing wrong with advocating for still more restrictions or limits on them -- on the giants.

However, censorship is probably wrong, like a rule forbidding them from promoting a film or book or other political propaganda for distribution. Banning a book or film (Citizens United case) is not a good way to restrict the megagroups. This was ruled an infringement on their 1st Amendment rights, just as it would have been an infringement to censor any individual's or small group's publication or film production.

You cannot justify banning a book or publication or recording just because it's political or might influence voters. It is not wrong for crusaders to try to influence voters with political propaganda, however much they spend on it. Maybe the publication (or political promotion) could be taxed in some form -- this is a legitimate consideration. But not blatant censorship, as the Election Commission tried to do to the Citizens United company.


Why censorship?
because the publisher is "not people!" ? ? ? ? ?

Is this what you want? a nation where books can be banned or censored, and the only reason the book-banners need to give is that the publisher is "not people"? (How different is it to brand someone as "not people" than branding them as a "witch"?)

In the Citizens United case, the Election Commission went way beyond anything reasonable to restrict undue influence in elections. Banning a book or film is not a legitimate form of regulating political propaganda/speech. Congress or state legislatures could take this up and consider ways to make the elections more fair and counterbalance some cases of excess influence which some wealthy interests might exert onto elections.

This would be legitimate, and it might take the form of giving extra opportunity to those of lesser influence or means, so that they could be given some extra assistance by the state to exert influence, to do some additional form of campaigning or publishing or broadcasting, etc., to gain some extra exposure in the media, and so on. There are many possibilities for this, without the need for blatant censorship.

And this effort to counterbalance the influence from wealthy interests has to be seen as NOT something that would EQUALIZE everything, but only tip the scales somewhat back toward the favor of those of lesser means, so their chances of success are improved, not so that the whole process is made 100% fair and equal. Rather, the process is to be improved, or tilted toward favoring the less powerful voices to have a better chance.


A straightforward rule everyone understands:
Don't censor or suppress political speech!

But we should draw the line at that point where those publishing or propagandizing are suppressed and their product confiscated, impounded, banned, censored, silenced, disappeared, seized, destroyed -- any suppression which cancels the propaganda from being presented, destroying the communication of it to the intended audience. No, FIND SOME POSITIVE WAY to tip the scales toward helping those of lesser means be able to make their voice heard in the election campaigning -- to improve their chances. NOT A NEGATIVE WAY, of suppressing or silencing someone's voice. NO ONE'S VOICE should ever be silenced, even that of the more wealthy or powerful.

No one should ever be singled out as needing to be suppressed or silenced in any form, or shut down from publishing their ideas, their theories, their proposition for change, as long as they're not urging something criminal. There should be no exception to this -- election time should not be made a special-case exception as a period when censorship is allowed and voices can be silenced for some reason.


Find an alternative to censorship.

This does not prevent some regulation on the free speech or propaganda, but only imposes the qualifier that the regulation cannot be censorship per se. Within the parameter of no censorship or suppression, there can be some forms of regulation which give aid to those campaigners of lesser means, to increase their chance of success in a contest against a megacorp or other powerful interests.

They 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 [of a noncorporate group or club] because it’s a reflection of individuals engaging in civic discourse.

But that's also the case for the megacorps, or all corporations big and small, which also are "people" protected by the law, having 1st Amendment rights, like freedom of speech and press, and who also engage in civic discourse. Just because the group is large and is officially incorporated does not mean they aren't "engaging in civic discourse" and free speech protected by the Constitution. They might be restricted in some cases because they're so large and powerful, but not because they're "not people" or because they're corporations per se.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

You’ve written a wall of text, but all it really does is reveal that you haven’t read Citizens United and don’t understand what the ruling actually said. You’re not exposing contradictions—you’re creating noise to avoid the legal and constitutional distinction at the heart of the issue.

“Corporations are not people” is not some mystical slogan pulled out of nowhere. It’s a plain-language way of pointing out that while corporations can be treated as legal persons for contracts, property, and lawsuits, they are not natural persons with full constitutional rights like voting, self-expression, or civic participation. That distinction matters. When Citizens United was decided, it wasn’t affirming that people inside a corporation have rights—that’s already settled law. It granted the corporate entity itself the constitutional right to spend unlimited money to influence elections. That’s not about free speech for individuals—it’s about elevating economic power into political power, detached from actual democratic accountability.

You confuse incorporation with personhood. Yes, churches and nonprofits may be incorporated for legal reasons, but when they express themselves, it is usually as a collective reflection of their members. By contrast, when a for-profit corporation like Exxon or Meta buys political ads, that “speech” is decided by a handful of executives, not the employees, shareholders, or customers. There’s no vote, no internal democracy, and no assumption that the people inside the entity consent to the message. That’s why we draw a line between expressive associations and commercial corporations—because one is grounded in civic voice, the other in fiduciary interest.

You also seem to think rights are handed out like permission slips, and that we should be able to find a government-issued list of which entities are “people” and which are not. But that’s not how constitutional rights work. The law distinguishes between natural persons, who hold inalienable rights by virtue of being human, and legal persons, who are created by the state and granted limited rights based on the function they serve. Corporations don’t lose “rights” by default—but they are not automatically entitled to every protection reserved for citizens, especially when it comes to shaping elections.

Before Citizens United, no one was denying the LDS Church or Planned Parenthood the ability to speak. But corporate entities—particularly large, for-profit ones—were limited in their ability to spend general treasury funds on direct political messaging. The Court struck down those limits, not to protect individual voices, but to elevate corporate spending as a protected form of speech.

That’s the issue. And it’s why this conversation isn’t about whether a church or cult is incorporated—it’s about whether the law should treat a state-created structure of capital as a political actor equal to a citizen. Your refusal to distinguish between voluntary civic expression and institutional influence is what’s misleading this entire exchange.

You haven’t quoted the Citizens United ruling. You haven’t referenced a single case it overturned. You haven’t cited the Court’s reasoning. That’s because you haven’t read it—and everything you’ve written since has been a rhetorical smokescreen to avoid that fact.

If you want to defend the decision, do it on the merits. Quote the majority. Respond to the dissent. Address the actual legal reasoning. Until then, all you’re doing is proving that your position is based on volume, not understanding.

NHC

 

[NoHolyCows]

FALSE DICHOTOMY

1) corporations ("not people")
(not protected by the 1st Amendment, not having Constitutional rights)
----- vs. -----
2) noncorporations ("voluntary associations")
(protected by the 1st Amendment, having Constitutional rights)

the meaning of "Corporations are not people"

​

Stop lying -- you have not distinguished "corporations" (which have no rights) from other groups (which are "people" and have rights).


(continued from previous Wall of Text)


Who here has explained why the cult of David Koresh (or any other noncorporation) is/was "people" with 1st Amendment rights, but Joseph Smith's LDS Church (or any other corporation) is "not people" having no 1st Amendment rights? Give the date or number of this post where this was answered, or quote from it so we can judge if this was answered. Where did they answer it? in the earlier posts? Where have they named a particular example of a corporation and explained how that group is "not people" in comparison to another (noncorporate) group which is "people" and has 1st Amendment rights?

Don't just keep repeating that this has been answered -- identify the post which answered it, quote from it

The concern with corporations [correction: megagroups] isn’t that some members disagree — it’s that the “speech” being protected is financial power used to influence elections, . . .

Even if that's true in some cases (NOT MOST cases of corporations), there are rules limiting that influence regardless of Citizens United. This case did not eliminate regulation of megacorps or their influence on elections. Even if it modified some regulations, plenty of those rules remain, to control the influence on elections, because megacorps like individual humans are "people" which society regulates as needed. Even after this case there are regulations, exerted by Congress and the Executive. The Court ruling was only that the censorship is not the right form of regulation, as it violates the 1st Amendment.

The concern with corporations [correction: megacorps] isn't that some members disagree -- it's that the "speech" being protected is financial power used to . . .

You mean someone with financial power has no free speech protection? or shouldn't have? Why not? Why shouldn't they have the same free speech protection as anyone else? And even if some special conditions are imposed on them to limit their financial power, how does that mean they're "not people"? or that they don't have 1st Amendment rights? They're still entitled to free speech and press even though they have financial power. Where in any law or legal precedent or Court Ruling was it ever said that those with "financial power" are "not people" or have no 1st Amendment rights?

. . . power used to influence elections, with no . . .

There's nothing wrong with influencing elections, or wanting to influence them. You're entitled to spend your money -- or the group is entitled to spend its money -- on influencing elections, i.e., influencing voters to change their vote. This should not be treated as something derogatory, making them "not people" or not having 1st Amendment rights. This would be to deny rights to someone (to try to influence elections) who are mostly small and have tiny influence on anyone. Again, you're imagining that ALL corporations are huge giants manipulating tiny weak minorities, when the truth is that the vast majority of corporations have no more power than the local Rotary Club. Probably less.

. . . with no accountability to the public and often not even to the individuals within the corporation [correction: megacorp].

Again you're describing only the giant megacorps.

Yes it's true that the giants generally have more power in the social structure, but even so there's plenty of non-accountability throughout society, vast nonaccountability everywhere, in all kinds of groups big and small, corporate and noncorporate, and all of them are "people" groups with 1st Amendment rights. It's fine to crusade for more accountability in general, but what does that have to do with being "not people"? Other groups too are non-accountable to the public and to their individual members, and yet they are NONcorporate groups -- churches, clubs, fraternities. No one is explaining why those wouldn't also be in the "not people" category along with megacorps.

-----​

stop lying and falsely claiming this has been explained by someone. If non-accountability is the reason corporations are "not people," then why aren't many other groups (NONcorporations) also "not people"? You know it's not true that ONLY CORPORATIONS are nonaccountable.

-----​

If being nonaccountable makes a group "not people," then you have to explain why it's only the corporations which are "not people" -- why not also other large groups which become impersonal and are run by a tiny elite? -- if you don't know, it shows you don't understand why you're claiming corporations are "not people" -- which means this is just an impulse or a knee-jerk spasm that comes from inside you somewhere, probably an emotional expression of hate or anger against corporations which you need to express in order to release some built-up pressure or rage against certain corporations which you or a loved one had a bad experience with.

If you need sympathy to help in your dealing with these emotions, maybe some counseling would help. But name-calling -- "You're not people!" -- and depriving someone of their Constitutional rights is hardly an appropriate way to deal with your inner emotional tensions you can't control or understand. More appropriate would be to determine the origin of these emotions, and seeking help to cope with them.

That's not protected to safeguard personal liberty; it’s protected to expand institutional leverage.

Each entity covered by 1st Amendment protection is entitled to that protection regardless how you judge their motivation for wanting that protection, such as whether they want to "expand" their leverage -- ALL the political players (or 90% of them) are trying to expand themselves more and more, as basic to the power struggle all of them are engaged in.

Whether they "expand" or contract -- after the dust from Citizens United has settled, there still remain limits on political influence of megacorps (or the extra large groups) which is what this is really about -- not all corporations per se. If there's a need to make the megacorps more accountable or democratic, you can promote additional restrictions on them, and even on other large entities (that are NOT corporations), including individuals (tycoons), who might exert too much power -- (but probably not censorship, as the FEC tried to do) -- and again the restrictions are not needed for corporations generally but only the megacorps. Because 99% of corporations are irrelevant in this regard, having no more influence than the local lemonade stand.

This particular case was really about film-banning, or censorship, similar to book-banning. This was probably a bad regulation, or a case of overreach by the Election Commission. However, even if the film producer Citizens United acted wrongly in circulating their movie, and needed to be curtailed -- you could argue the case -- it's not because this corporation was "not people" and so had no 1st Amendment rights. Rather it arguably would be because these "people" (or this "person" Citizens United) acted contrary to some fair-election rules. That's how a Left-wing Court probably would have ruled.

So the Commission tried to enforce its rules -- which probably should also apply to any NON-corporations doing the same thing, and so the case had nothing to do with the incorporation or the "people" or "not people" status of the film producer. And saying the film should be banned because the producer is "not people" never made any sense, and no one yet has made any sense of this nutcase argument that someone is "not people" -- it still is nothing but a Left-wing outburst against megacorps, a dog-whistle slogan to the mindless mob, with nothing of substance legally.


Is censorship the only remedy you can think of?

You should be able to figure out better forms of controlling the power of the giants (the megacorps, not "corporations" of every kind -- most of which are not megacorps (99% of them) and have no such power). No doubt there are ways to improve the performance of the Election Commission so it could better regulate the giant players. Its attack on Citizens United was probably wrong, clumsy and misguided, as censorship (book-banning and film-banning) is not a good way to make elections more fair. Any person, group, corporation big or small should have the right to publish political propaganda, even during election time. Free speech and free press are so important and basic that virtually any censorship of political propaganda is out of bounds.

It's healthy for democracy that groups other than only the candidates be allowed to publish political propaganda (as this case was about). This bad decision by the Election Commission -- censoring political propaganda -- is a greater threat to democracy than the large megacorps spending too much on the propaganda. Even wrong-headed propaganda is educational, and there is no net danger to democracy for the voting public to be exposed to it, even if the propaganda contains erroneous content.

You are wrong to dismiss the mass of voters as idiots who cannot judge political propaganda. You're wrong to downgrade them to an inferior class incapable of making intelligent decisions as voters. Stop pretending that you're superior to them and qualified to judge what propaganda is healthy for them to be exposed to!

If you really have such contempt for all voters, such that censorship is needed to protect them from voting stupidly, then why do you want to "get out the vote" and increase voter participation? If you really believe the voters are a mass of idiots who need censorship to protect them from being wrongly influenced, then you should favor reducing the voters to only the more educated classes, or some other screening to weed out the more ignorant ones.

The real danger is entrenchment of the current regime: With censorship as its weapon, the current faction in power can seize on the regulation to censor dissenting political publications, giving partisan favor to the propaganda they agree with and banning only the propaganda they oppose for partisan reasons. It's better for these regulators (acting as agents for the current Administration?) to keep hands off any form of censorship, banning political or controversial propaganda -- (with proper exception for anything criminal).

What might be legitimate instead would be some form of "reality check" review and assessment of such propaganda -- how about grand jury review of election propaganda and publication or announcement of the jury's findings. Such factual investigation and published information would be based on the premise that the masses of citizens are not idiots but are capable of good judgement as MORE information (not less) is presented to them. This would serve to counterbalance deceptive and false propaganda by publishing a refutation of it, so that counter-argument rather than censorship is the proper way to respond to the deceptive propaganda.

That’s not protected to safeguard personal liberty; it’s protected to expand institutional leverage.

What does that mean? 1st Amendment protection is wrong unless it's done for the correct reason? You have a Papal Bull dictating what is the proper/improper motive or reason for 1st Amendment protection in this or that case? What does "expand institutional leverage" mean? = expand someone's power? Whose? Aren't those not in power entitled to publish propaganda to promote their crusade? "expand" their influence or power, or their opportunity to spread their cause to others and even to win power away from the current regime by legal means?


To EXPAND one's influence (or "leverage")
("expand institutional leverage") -- is this always wrong?

"institutional" vs. what? vs. personal, individual?

You mean someone is promoting "institutional" power? Is that bad? Anything "institutional" is unhealthy? dangerous to society? unwholesome? HOW? according to who?

Is it the Pope? Trump's Supreme Court? who says this "institutional leverage" is a threat to us?

And so it must be CENSORED? Crack down on those trying to promote something "institutional"??
No, here's a better idea -- promote the alternative, the personal or individual, or whatever the alternative to "institutional" is. If something being published is dangerous or wicked, then find ways to publish something else which would be better, or not dangerous or wicked.

Whoever those dangerous wicked people are, you can't deny them 1st Amendment protection only because you want to keep them out of power per se -- stop them from expanding (and thus entrench your faction or regime instead of theirs). No, you can defeat the opposition through proper competition in the social debating process, not through censoring the opposition. The publishers of the offensive political propaganda are entitled to promote their agenda and their power -- acquiring more power is not inherently wrong if it's done by publishing political propaganda which isn't criminal (or inciting to crime).


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

You’ve spent thousands of words avoiding the actual question: What did Citizens United change, and why does it matter? You haven’t quoted the opinion. You haven’t addressed what precedents were overturned. You haven’t acknowledged the central legal issue: whether a state-created entity—a corporation—should be granted the same First Amendment political speech rights as a natural person.

Instead, you’ve built an endless strawman: pretending this debate is about whether churches can speak, or whether non-corporate cults are “people.” No one is arguing that religious groups or voluntary associations lose First Amendment rights. Those rights apply because they’re rooted in the individuals expressing themselves through those organizations. That’s settled law. Always has been.

But Citizens United didn’t just protect the speech of people within a group. It gave the corporation itself the constitutional right to spend unlimited money on elections. That’s not protecting civic speech—it’s turning institutional capital into political power. And your repeated deflection from that central fact shows you haven’t read the opinion or understood what’s at stake.

You claim this isn’t about “megacorps”—then why did the decision unleash Super PACs, dark money, and corporate electioneering on a scale never seen before? If 99% of corporations are irrelevant, then Citizens United was a solution in search of a problem—unless its real purpose was to empower the 1% that already dominate our political discourse.

You ask for where the law says corporations are “not people.” You’re missing the point. The Constitution protects individual rights—it doesn’t have to list what legal fictions aren’t people. The burden is on those arguing that corporations should have full constitutional personhood, not on critics to invent a list of exclusions.

You also keep invoking censorship—but Citizens United was not about banning a film. It was about whether electioneering communications funded by a corporation could be regulated during campaign season. That’s not book-banning. That’s campaign finance law. And the Court’s decision removed long-standing protections designed to keep economic power from drowning out political equality.

The real false dichotomy here is yours: either total deregulation of corporate speech or totalitarian censorship. That’s not the choice. The actual debate is about whether money is speech, and whether legal fictions created for commerce should be given the same political rights as voting citizens.

Until you engage with that question—and with what the Court actually ruled—you’re not debating. You’re filibustering.

NHC