Corporations are People?

[Lumpenproletariat]

Corporations have no privileges. You are perfectly free to
Form your own corporation.

. . . the distinction is not between “individual” and “group,” it’s between associative expression by individuals and independent political power held by a state-created legal entity.

Whatever that means, all you have to do is form your own corporation, and you can have the same. You can have your own independent political power held by a state-created legal entity. Nothing stops you. Even one individual can form a corporation.

Groups like churches or PTAs are protected because they represent the constitutional rights of their members acting in concert.

Whatever that means, corporations do the same. They too represent the constitutional rights of their members and act in concert with them.

Corporations, in the Citizens United context, are not simply people associating; they are structured legal entities with economic privileges, . . .

No they are not. You can do exactly what they do. A PRIVILEGE is a benefit granted to only a select few, to the exclusion of everyone else. No one is excluded from forming a corporation. Even a child can form a corporation. There's no legal restriction prohibiting it. So if it's true that corporations have some special benefits granted by the government, it's not a privilege, because creating or operating a corporation is an opportunity open to absolutely everyone. So all the whining that there's some unfair privilege granted to corporations is phony.

. . . legal entities with economic privileges, and their political activity doesn’t necessarily reflect the will of their members.

That's just as true of NONcorporations as it is of corporations. Most groups that do political activities do not necessarily reflect the will of their members.


When will someone finally tell us what makes corporations different? such that they are "not people" while all other groups are? and such that they are the only groups not entitled to 1st Amendment rights?

When will someone finally explain why the ACLU and Planned Parenthood are "not people" and have no 1st Amendment rights, while David Koresh and his Branch Davidians were people and did have 1st Amendment rights?

If you say "corporation are not people," you are saying that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood are "not people" and have no 1st Amendment rights, while other groups, like most community organizations and churches and religious cults and street gangs and cock-fighting clubs etc. are people and do have 1st Amendment rights.

Why do the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have no 1st Amendment rights and are "not people" but street gangs and most religious cults are people and do have 1st Amendment rights?

 

[NoHolyCows]

Whatever that means, all you have to do is form your own corporation, and you can have the same. You can have your own independent political power held by a state-created legal entity. Nothing stops you. Even one individual can form a corporation.

And that proves my point: the “rights” you’re defending exist only after state creation. They are legal privileges, not natural rights. You don’t need to file paperwork to speak as a person—you do to speak as a corporation. That difference is everything. The First Amendment protects people, not state-manufactured power structures.

Whatever that means, corporations do the same. They too represent the constitutional rights of their members and act in concert with them.

No, they don’t. Churches and PTAs don’t exist to generate profit or exercise power apart from their members. Corporations do. That’s why they’re separately chartered legal entities with their own assets, liabilities, and political agendas—often against the interests of some shareholders or workers. They don’t “represent” people—they replace them with an artificial actor. That’s not association. That’s substitution.

No they are not. You can do exactly what they do. A PRIVILEGE is a benefit granted to only a select few, to the exclusion of everyone else. No one is excluded from forming a corporation. Even a child can form a corporation. There's no legal restriction prohibiting it. So if it's true that corporations have some special benefits granted by the government, it's not a privilege, because creating or operating a corporation is an opportunity open to absolutely everyone. So all the whining that there's some unfair privilege granted to corporations is phony.

That's just as true of NONcorporations as it is of corporations. Most groups that do political activities do not necessarily reflect the will of their members.


When will someone finally tell us what makes corporations different? such that they are "not people" while all other groups are? and such that they are the only groups not entitled to 1st Amendment rights?

When will someone finally explain why the ACLU and Planned Parenthood are "not people" and have no 1st Amendment rights, while David Koresh and his Branch Davidians were people and did have 1st Amendment rights?

If you say "corporation are not people," you are saying that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood are "not people" and have no 1st Amendment rights, while other groups, like most community organizations and churches and religious cults and street gangs and cock-fighting clubs etc. are people and do have 1st Amendment rights.

Why do the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have no 1st Amendment rights and are "not people" but street gangs and most religious cults are people and do have 1st Amendment rights?

The difference is simple and decisive: corporations exist because the state grants them legal existence, powers, and protections not available to natural persons or informal groups. That includes perpetual life, limited liability, and favorable tax treatment. These are not constitutional rights—they are statutory privileges.

Groups like churches or the ACLU derive First Amendment protection because they represent the speech of natural persons associating voluntarily. Corporations, by contrast, are legal fictions created to pursue economic goals under state-chartered protections.

The state is not required to grant constitutional political rights to an artificial entity it created for commercial purposes. Saying “just form a corporation” doesn’t change that—it proves the point: you are asking the government to confer special legal powers so you can then claim you have the same rights as a human being.

That’s not speech—it’s gaming the Constitution.

This is why “corporations are not people” matters. Not because groups can’t speak—but because we should not let state-constructed economic tools dominate elections under the false banner of free speech.

NHC

 

[NoHolyCows]

No they are not. You can do exactly what they do. A PRIVILEGE is a benefit granted to only a select few, to the exclusion of everyone else. No one is excluded from forming a corporation. Even a child can form a corporation. There's no legal restriction prohibiting it. So if it's true that corporations have some special benefits granted by the government, it's not a privilege, because creating or operating a corporation is an opportunity open to absolutely everyone. So all the whining that there's some unfair privilege granted to corporations is phony.

That’s a dodge. Just because anyone can form a corporation doesn’t erase the fact that corporations enjoy state-conferred powers—limited liability, perpetual life, tax advantages—that individuals do not. Those are privileges, by definition: legal advantages granted by the state. Your logic is like saying tax breaks aren’t privileges because anyone could qualify. No—when the state creates an artificial actor with powers beyond a natural person, it changes the game. And that is the core issue in Citizens United.

NHC

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Corporations have no privileges. You are perfectly free to
Form your own corporation.

Corporations do have privileges. A main one is that they are not taxed on their income, but on their profit.
You can't simply declare yourself a corporation, so as to not pay tax on your income.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

financial power to influence elections

(continued from previous Wall of Text)


If you have $1000 saved (or $5000 or $50,000), and the homeless pan-handler has only $5 in his pocket total assets (which he needs to pay for his next beer), then you have more "financial power" than he has. Is that "fair"? Is it "fair" that you should be allowed to spend $10 or $100 on a political campaign when the homeless bum cannot afford to spend more than $5? (Likewise your club of middle-class persons vs a group of poor peasants which has net negative assets.)

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

"concern" about what? There's nothing wrong with influencing elections, regardless of someone's "financial power" or any other factor. Anyone should be free to publish anything they want (and can afford to pay for) in order to influence elections -- ANYONE, including any group:

Who are the worst possible characters? -- how about convicted criminals, convicted murderers, rapists, torturers -- the worst possible monsters you can imagine -- mass murderers or terrorists, convicted Neo-Nazis incarcerated for horrible crimes -- whoever you can name -- they too should have maximum freedom to publish political propaganda promoting whatever ideology or cause they wish. Whatever property they may have directly or indirectly, or assets of any kind, or access to anything or power that is left to them they should be allowed to devote to any ideological or political or philosophical or religious cause they choose. Including political, such as promoting or condemning a political candidate.

If they have the means to produce another Hillary-type film and pay to have it shown, it should be their right to publish that, or contribute to someone publishing it, or solicit donations from others wanting it published. There should be absolutely no limit whatever to how much they're allowed to spend on it. You can't give one reason why they should not have that freedom to spend as much as they want on debunking some political candidate. Even if they have millions of $$$ stashed away somewhere somehow and want to spend it on that, it should be their freedom to spend it.

Everyone (including every imaginable GROUP) should be free to influence voters to change their vote, and millions/billions of individuals and groups do engage in that activity one way or another -- and it's OK that they do that, whether they're rich or poor, big or small. And this freedom to influence others (or try to) should be extended farther. Even foreigners should be allowed fully to participate in political campaigns within the U.S

Not only immigrants in the country, but also foreigners overseas should be free to do this, even if they've never been here. Even if some kind of extra-terrestrial aliens somewhere want to influence U.S. elections there's nothing wrong with it -- let them devote whatever assets they have on influencing U.S. voters to change their vote on some issue they care about -- maybe climate change, or special rights for ETs etc., a special holiday to salute non-humans.

It's obscene that there are bigoted laws telling foreigners that it's illegal for them to try to influence U.S. elections. Everyone should be equally free to publish any political propaganda they want (which doesn't urge anything criminal) and try to change people's minds about anything, including who to vote for. Even billionaires (or a club of them) should be free to spend their entire fortune promoting a political crusade of any kind.

Not only should ALL individuals of any kind or breed or stock have this freedom, but any GROUP of any kind should also have this basic freedom of speech. No, not to "yell fire in a crowded theater" etc., but any speech, including political, no matter how controversial or offensive, as long as it doesn't promote something criminal ("let's lynch the Vice President" etc.).

That someone, individual or group, has more than another is totally irrelevant. Those who have $100 more, or $100 million more than someone else are still free to spend it as they wish, on something personal or something of wider interest, social, philosophical, political --

it's their money to spend as they wish on anything non-criminal --​

and it's not criminal to try to influence voters or election outcomes. It's an option which is rightly left to the free choice of every individual or group that has a right to make any choices about anything. The choice to propagandize is a perfectly legitimate choice to make, as much as the choice of what shirt to wear or which way to comb your hair or what kind of music to listen to.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[NoHolyCows]

If you have $1000 saved (or $5000 or $50,000), and the homeless pan-handler has only $5 in his pocket total assets (which he needs to pay for his next beer), then you have more "financial power" than he has. Is that "fair"? Is it "fair" that you should be allowed to spend $10 or $100 on a political campaign when the homeless bum cannot afford to spend more than $5? (Likewise your club of middle-class persons vs a group of poor peasants which has net negative assets.)

The homeless person and I are both natural persons with equal First Amendment rights. A corporation is not. It exists only because the government created it—granting it limited liability, perpetual existence, and tax advantages. That’s not “unequal wealth,” that’s legal engineering.

So no—this isn’t about who has more money. It’s about whether a state-created economic entity should be allowed to use government-bestowed powers to influence democracy.

Answer: No. That’s not speech. That’s distortion.

"concern" about what? There's nothing wrong with influencing elections, regardless of someone's "financial power" or any other factor. Anyone should be free to publish anything they want (and can afford to pay for) in order to influence elections -- ANYONE, including any group:

Who are the worst possible characters? -- how about convicted criminals, convicted murderers, rapists, torturers -- the worst possible monsters you can imagine -- mass murderers or terrorists, convicted Neo-Nazis incarcerated for horrible crimes -- whoever you can name -- they too should have maximum freedom to publish political propaganda promoting whatever ideology or cause they wish. Whatever property they may have directly or indirectly, or assets of any kind, or access to anything or power that is left to them they should be allowed to devote to any ideological or political or philosophical or religious cause they choose. Including political, such as promoting or condemning a political candidate.

If they have the means to produce another Hillary-type film and pay to have it shown, it should be their right to publish that, or contribute to someone publishing it, or solicit donations from others wanting it published. There should be absolutely no limit whatever to how much they're allowed to spend on it. You can't give one reason why they should not have that freedom to spend as much as they want on debunking some political candidate. Even if they have millions of $$$ stashed away somewhere somehow and want to spend it on that, it should be their freedom to spend it.

Everyone (including every imaginable GROUP) should be free to influence voters to change their vote, and millions/billions of individuals and groups do engage in that activity one way or another -- and it's OK that they do that, whether they're rich or poor, big or small. And this freedom to influence others (or try to) should be extended farther. Even foreigners should be allowed fully to participate in political campaigns within the U.S

Not only immigrants in the country, but also foreigners overseas should be free to do this, even if they've never been here. Even if some kind of extra-terrestrial aliens somewhere want to influence U.S. elections there's nothing wrong with it -- let them devote whatever assets they have on influencing U.S. voters to change their vote on some issue they care about -- maybe climate change, or special rights for ETs etc., a special holiday to salute non-humans.

It's obscene that there are bigoted laws telling foreigners that it's illegal for them to try to influence U.S. elections. Everyone should be equally free to publish any political propaganda they want (which doesn't urge anything criminal) and try to change people's minds about anything, including who to vote for. Even billionaires (or a club of them) should be free to spend their entire fortune promoting a political crusade of any kind.

Not only should ALL individuals of any kind or breed or stock have this freedom, but any GROUP of any kind should also have this basic freedom of speech. No, not to "yell fire in a crowded theater" etc., but any speech, including political, no matter how controversial or offensive, as long as it doesn't promote something criminal ("let's lynch the Vice President" etc.).

That someone, individual or group, has more than another is totally irrelevant. Those who have $100 more, or $100 million more than someone else are still free to spend it as they wish, on something personal or something of wider interest, social, philosophical, political --

[] it's their money to spend as they wish on anything non-criminal --[/]
and it's not criminal to try to influence voters or election outcomes. It's an option which is rightly left to the free choice of every individual or group that has a right to make any choices about anything. The choice to propagandize is a perfectly legitimate choice to make, as much as the choice of what shirt to wear or which way to comb your hair or what kind of music to listen to.

Your entire response is a flood of rhetorical noise that dodges the core issue: we’re not debating whether people should have free speech — we’re debating whether artificial entities created by the state should be allowed to use concentrated economic power to distort democracy.

You keep invoking “everyone” and “freedom,” but corporations aren’t “everyone.” They’re not people. They’re legal fictions, designed to limit liability, shield owners, and maximize profit — not to exercise conscience, vote, or speak with a human voice.

Saying “anyone can form one” doesn’t make them human or entitled to equal political influence. That’s like saying “anyone can buy a tank” so tanks should be allowed in protests.

The First Amendment protects human voices. Not megaphones built by capital and chartered by the state.

The line is simple: speech is free, but power isn’t speech. That’s the distinction you refuse to face — and the one that ends this debate.

NHC

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Stop whining and just form your own corporation.
Corporations are not a special privileged class.


The only reason you don't incorporate is that it's not as profitable for you, in your individual case.

Corporations have no privileges. You are perfectly free to
Form your own corporation.

Corporations do have privileges. A main one is that they are not taxed on their income, . . .

Yes, they're taxed on their NET INCOME which is called "profit" -- while for individuals paying their taxes it's not called "profit" but "net income" or "taxable income" = same thing as profit. I.e., what's left over after deductions for expenses/costs which are not taxed.

Same thing but just a different name.

. . . not taxed on their income but on their profit.

which is the same as net income, same as individuals. So corporations are taxed the same, except that for individuals it's called net income while for businesses it's called "profit." Including for non-incorporated businesses.

You can't simply declare yourself a corporation, so as to not pay tax on your income.

Yes you can simply incorporate as the corporations did (which existed first as noncorporations (e.g. businesses) before they incorporated, and so were not created by the state) -- nothing privileged about it -- you're just as free to incorporate as Elon Musk or any rich person is. And then you still pay your tax on your taxable income (profit), but your corporation also pays a similar tax on its profit or net income, and so you can choose how much of your wealth to put into the corporation or keep in your personal assets -- no matter how poor you are, you have all the same benefits of incorporation as Elon Musk and the other billionaires have.

So just do what's more profitable for you, like all the investors and CEOs etc. did. The bottom line: whatever makes you richer, or less poor. Like everyone does. Profit! that's everyone's guiding principle. I.e., your own personal individual profit.


Is there a difference between "business tax" and "corporate tax"?

Theoretically there's supposed to be a difference, but no one seems to be able to explain what the difference is. Maybe corporate tax is more complicated.

Even so -- let's suppose there's a fundamental difference. The fact still remains that ANY business is perfectly free to incorporate if that approach would be more profitable for it. So there is still no privilege of corporations over nonincorporated businesses. It's nonsense to say there is, because if corporations are automatically better off, then there'd be NO noncorporate businesses left, because they would all simply incorporate. Nothing stops them!

So cut out the whining that corporations are somehow "unfair" and must pay some penalty for all their alleged privileges -- Like, they must not spend on political propaganda. Or other penalties. No, just become a corporation yourself if you think they enjoy all those extra benefits you're missing out on.

 

[ZiprHead]

Whatever that means, corporations do the same. They too represent the constitutional rights of their members and act in concert with them.

Where in the world did you come up with that silly idea???

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why are you spooked out about corporations?

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

There's nothing wrong with either financial power per se or with influencing elections. Someone with $1000 has more "financial power" than a poor beggar, and yet there is nothing wrong about some individuals or groups having more financial power than others. And it's good for people to try to influence others, even trying to convert them to a different political candidate or party.

. . . with no accountability to the public and often not even to the individuals within the corporation.

There is widespread lack of accountability throughout ALL society, in corporations and NONcorporations, among individuals and groups of all kinds big and small, rich and poor.


Most groups are UNdemocratic, not just corporations.

And those who make the decisions in groups often go against the will of the majority of the members -- that is more the rule than the exception, for ALL kinds of groups, big and small, corporate and noncorporate. Nothing here is special about corporations. The more powerful always ride roughshod over those who are weaker.

(You are still oblivious to the fact that 99% of corporations are SMALL, not rich. Even 99% of the for-profit corporations are minor, of low income, generally lower than the average middle-class worker.)

Why can't you tell us something which makes corporations different, such that they are "not people" and should have no 1st Amendment rights? E.g., why should the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have no 1st Amendment rights? They are corporations which you say are "not people" and are not entitled to 1st Amendment rights. But you won't say why.

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

Everyone is trying (with some succeeding) at expanding their institutional leverage, or at least all institutions are, and all groups of all kinds, not only corporations. What's wrong with a group expanding its "institutional leverage"? Are institutions basically evil, such that it's bad if they expand?

It is people just as the corporation is people. Protected by 1st Amendment rights.

This is the core issue. While it’s true that corporations are composed of people, the entity itself is a legal fiction created by the state, not . . .

So, why should a "legal fiction" be deprived of its 1st Amendment rights? or declared as "not people"? There's nothing derogatory about being a "legal fiction" -- a child adoption is a legal fiction. Is that family-with-adopted-child "not people" because it's a "legal fiction" and not covered by the 1st Amendment?

Maybe you can find some theoreticians who say they're not, according to some jargon in the institution that indoctrinated them. But you can't give a reason why every "legal fiction" group is not still "people" and not still entitled to 1st Amendment protection. This should even include an isolated tribe or village somewhere not recognized in the official law, maybe not yet known to outsiders.

How about a prison camp worksite for convicted felons -- which the state created. Why isn't that group -- that camp of prisoners -- also entitled to basic free speech rights? Why aren't they also "people" with free speech rights even if some of their other rights are necessarily curtailed? Why shouldn't they (it, that workcamp of prisoners) have the right to publish political propaganda if they wish? if they have some legitimate means to do it? Why shouldn't they be free to send out propaganda literature, or even produce a video to be broadcast, condemning some politician they hate? and spend as much as they want? maybe collect donations -- millions of $$$ -- from someone who agrees with them? and maybe destroy that politician's career, if they're successful?

The right to free speech should be the very last right someone can be deprived of.

Why must we submit to your legalistic expert scholar who says some unofficial unrecognized group somewhere is "not people" and is not covered by the 1st Amendment, or is categorized into a lower class of "not people" because someone labeled them as a "legal fiction" or some other classification to separate them from us officially-authorized "people" who have some priority status?

You can't give any reason why "legal fiction" groups or individuals are not still "people" who are entitled to the same basic rights. Especially free speech.

. . . a legal fiction created by the state, not a natural rights-bearing person.

What's not "natural" about them? or about their rights? Your right to free speech is natural but theirs is not? How are you judging what's "natural" and what is not?

You need to dispense with this artificial jargon to separate someone off separately into a hated scapegoat category because of their unpopular image. EVERY GROUP however unpopular is people and is covered by the 1st Amendment (or should be -- you can probably find a legalist expert who reasons a division of groups between the unnatural nonoriginal tainted stock vs. the select intrinsically pure stock of "people" with full genuine rights, as developed in their classification system -- this is more philosophy than science).

There are special rules or conditions for certain categories, based on practical and objective reality -- e.g., prisoners/convicted criminals don't have the same rights when they serve time; jury members lose part of their free speech rights -- there are some necessary special conditions applied to certain groups, out of practical necessity, which anyone can recognize without a special jargon required to explain it. It has to be explained in practical terms why the system cannot function unless those special terms are imposed, for those exceptional cases -- to show what the conflicts would be -- the extra costs, the risks to society -- if full rights were to be granted in those cases.

That some group might spend too much money on political propaganda does not pose a threat to society. That the "wrong" candidate might get elected is not an acceptable excuse why free speech rights should be curtailed to anyone. There's too much low-class political propaganda circulated, by all the parties and candidates -- by rich and poor propagandists of many different kinds. Yet it's better to have all the propagandizing, let everyone participate in it who wants to, and hope some try to offer healthy propaganda to counter the unhealthy kind. There's no way to judge that some of it is dangerous and must be suppressed for the good of the voters who are easily duped and are too stupid to discriminate intelligently the good from the bad.

 

[pood]

OMFG a brief scan validates my decision to skip this thread.

 

[pood]

Carry on the good work by those of you trying to explain things, though.

 

[NoHolyCows]

There's nothing wrong with either financial power per se or with influencing elections. Someone with $1000 has more "financial power" than a poor beggar, and yet there is nothing wrong about some individuals or groups having more financial power than others. And it's good for people to try to influence others, even trying to convert them to a different political candidate or party.

You’re dodging again. The issue isn’t that some people have more money. It’s that state-created entities — not people — are using that money to dominate elections with no accountability to voters, no conscience, and no right to vote themselves.

This isn’t about individuals spending their own money. It’s about legal constructs weaponizing unlimited capital to drown out actual citizens.

Influence from citizens is democracy. Influence from artificial entities with no stake in the social contract is distortion.

That’s the line. And you’re on the wrong side of it.

There is widespread lack of accountability throughout all society, in corporations and NONcorporations, among individuals and groups of all kinds big and small, rich and poor.


Most groups are UNdemocratic, not just corporations.

And those who make the decisions in groups often go against the will of the majority of the members -- that is more the rule than the exception, for ALL kinds of groups, big and small, corporate and noncorporate. Nothing here is special about corporations. The more powerful always ride roughshod over those who are weaker.

(You are still oblivious to the fact that 99% of corporations are SMALL, not rich. Even 99% of the for-profit corporations are minor, of low income, generally lower than the average middle-class worker.)

Why can't you tell us something which makes corporations different, such that they are "not people" and should have no 1st Amendment rights? E.g., why should the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have no 1st Amendment rights? They are corporations which you say are "not people" and are not entitled to 1st Amendment rights. But you won't say why.

You’re repeating a dodge that’s already been closed.

The issue isn’t that some groups are undemocratic — it’s that corporations are created by the state, insulated by limited liability, empowered by economic scale, and not citizens. They don’t vote, bleed, or bear consequences for the policies they bankroll.

Planned Parenthood and the ACLU represent associational speech of citizens—real people pooling rights they already have. But Exxon or BlackRock aren’t gathering citizens to express conscience—they’re leveraging state-conferred privileges to magnify power beyond any individual’s rights.

That’s the difference. That’s why the First Amendment protects people, not property. And that’s why your argument collapses.

Everyone is trying (with some succeeding) at expanding their institutional leverage, or at least all institutions are, and all groups of all kinds, not only corporations. What's wrong with a group expanding its "institutional leverage"? Are institutions basically evil, such that it's bad if they expand?

You’re dodging the point again. The First Amendment exists to protect individual liberty—the rights of natural persons to speak, dissent, and petition. It was never meant as a tool to amplify the power of state-created entities that already benefit from structural advantages like perpetual life, limited liability, and access to vast capital.

What’s wrong isn’t that institutions seek leverage—it’s that they are not persons, yet you’re demanding they be treated as such, with no limit, even when their power can drown out the very individuals the First Amendment was written to protect.

You’re not defending free speech. You’re defending a loophole that lets artificial entities weaponize constitutional rights they were never meant to have. That’s the end of the argument.

So, why should a "legal fiction" be deprived of its 1st Amendment rights? or declared as "not people"? There's nothing derogatory about being a "legal fiction" -- a child adoption is a legal fiction. Is that family-with-adopted-child "not people" because it's a "legal fiction" and not covered by the 1st Amendment?

Maybe you can find some theoreticians who say they're not, according to some jargon in the institution that indoctrinated them. But you can't give a reason why every "legal fiction" group is not still "people" and still entitled to 1st Amendment protection. This should even include an isolated tribe or village somewhere not recognized in the official law, maybe not yet known to outsiders.

How about a prison camp worksite for convicted felons -- which the state created. Why isn't that group, that camp of prisoners also entitled to basic free speech rights? Why aren't they also "people" with free speech rights even if some of their other rights are necessarily curtailed? Why shouldn't they (it, that workcamp of prisoners) have the right to publish political propaganda if they wish? if they have some legitimate means to do it? Why shouldn't they be free to send out propaganda literature, or even produce a video to be broadcast, condemning some politician they hate? and spend as much as they want? maybe collect donations -- millions of $$$ -- from someone who agrees with them? and maybe destroy that politician's career, if they're successful?

The right to free speech should be the very last right someone can be deprived of.

Why must we submit to your legalistic expert scholar who says some unofficial unrecognized group somewhere is "not people" and is not covered by the 1st Amendment, or is categorized into a lower class of "not people" because someone labeled them as a "legal fiction" or some other classification to separate them from us officially-authorized "people" who have some priority status?

You can't give any reason why "legal fiction" groups or individuals are not still "people" who are entitled to the same basic rights. Especially free speech.

A “legal fiction” is not a derogatory term—it’s a designation for entities that do not exist naturally, but are created and defined by the state. That’s the whole point: corporations exist because the law creates them, not because they are people. They’re tools—state-sanctioned structures with economic and legal privileges designed to serve specific purposes, not to possess rights independent of the individuals behind them.

Speech rights exist to protect conscience and liberty, not to let artificial entities drown out public discourse with money-fueled influence. The First Amendment guards human autonomy, not the institutional power of entities that only exist by permission of law.

You can’t stretch “personhood” so far it erases the line between human beings and constructs invented to shield them from liability and maximize capital. That’s not free speech—it’s a hijacking of constitutional protections for private gain.

What's not "natural" about them? or about their rights? Your right to free speech is natural but theirs is not? How are you judging what's "natural" and what is not?

You need to dispense with this artificial jargon to separate someone off separately into a hated scapegoat category because of their unpopular image. EVERY GROUP however unpopular is people and is covered by the 1st Amendment (or should be -- you can probably find a legalist expert who reasons a division of groups between the unnatural nonoriginal tainted stock vs. the select intrinsically pure stock of "people" with full genuine rights, as developed in their classification system -- this is more philosophy than science).

There are special rules or conditions for certain categories, based on practical and objective reality -- e.g., prisoners/convicted criminals don't have the same rights when they serve time; jury members lose part of their free speech rights -- there are some necessary special conditions applied to certain groups, out of practical necessity, which anyone can recognize without a special jargon required to explain it. It has to be explained in practical terms why the system cannot function unless those special terms are imposed, for those exceptional cases -- to show what the conflicts would be, the extra costs, the risks to society if full rights were to be granted in those cases.

That some group might spend too much money on political propaganda does not pose a threat to society. That the "wrong" candidate might get elected is not an acceptable excuse why free speech rights should be curtailed to anyone. There's too much low-class political propaganda circulated, by all the parties and candidates -- by rich and poor propagandists of many different kinds. Yet it's better to have all the propagandizing, let everyone participate in it who wants to, and hope some try to offer healthy propaganda to counter the unhealthy kind. There's no way to judge that some of it is dangerous and must be suppressed for the good of the voters who are easily duped and are too stupid to discriminate intelligently the good from the bad.

You’re dodging the core distinction. Natural rights belong to persons simply because they exist. Corporations don’t exist naturally—they are state-created instruments with powers, immunities, and structures defined entirely by law. That’s not philosophy; that’s basic jurisprudence.

Calling a corporation “people” is as incoherent as calling your driver’s license a citizen. The First Amendment protects individual conscience, not artificial entities designed to concentrate wealth and shield accountability. The issue isn’t propaganda—people can publish what they want. The issue is whether government-created financial engines should be treated as if they were living citizens in the democratic process.

No, they shouldn’t. And you’ve still given no reason why they must.

NHC

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

People can vote in elections; corporations can not, so therefore corporations are not people.

Lumpenproletariat's claim that income tax is the same as tax on profits is ridiculous, by claiming an employee income is same as a profit.
Also he doesn't understand that one can not simply declare yourself a corporation, but must have a business that has an income, and being an employee doesn't qualify.

 

[NoHolyCows]

People can vote in elections; corporations can not, so therefore corporations are not people.

Lumpenproletariat's claim that income tax is the same as tax on profits is ridiculous, by claiming an employee income is same as a profit.
Also he doesn't understand that one can not simply declare yourself a corporation, but must have a business that has an income, and being an employee doesn't qualify.

Exactly—voting is the most basic act of political personhood, and corporations can’t do it. That alone shows they aren’t “people” in the constitutional sense. As for taxes: profit is surplus after costs; wages are compensation for labor. Equating the two is economic nonsense. And no, incorporating isn’t just declaring yourself a corporation—it’s a legal process with obligations and benefits that individuals don’t get. Lumpen’s logic collapses under its own weight.

NHC

 

[bilby]

Lumpen’s logic collapses under its own weight.

And it's a lot of needless weight.

There's a very strong correlation in his posting history between brevity and quality; If he posts more than a few dozen words, they are almost never worth reading.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Current Thom Hartmann (dis)honesty rating
(dishonesty to never (almost never) mention that Citizens United was about censorship, and that the Court ruled to uphold 1st Amendment right to free speech)
meaning of the score: 4-0 (June 10) -- the 4 means he mentioned the case Citizens United 4 times, each time saying that the case was about giving corporations the right to bribe politicians. 4-0 -- the 0 (zero) is the number of times he acknowledged that the case was about censorship and that the Court overruled the FEC action to ban/suppress the film Hilary: The Movie, in 2008, the first time in U.S. history that the federal gov't censored political speech. It's dishonest to disregard this important fact about the case. When you have to resort to censorship and suppression of free speech, it indicates that your cause is not just.

LATEST SCORE
June 10 - 20
10: 4-0
11: 1-0
12: 0-0
13: omitted from the survey
16: 3-0
17: omitted from the survey
18: 2-0
19: 2-0
20: 0-0

score: 12-0 so far -- Hartmann 0 for 12, batting average still .000
The program is live M-F -- survey resumes June 23

It's dishonest to say this case was about legalizing bribery of politicians and NOT mention that it was a censorship case, to determine if the FEC can banish or suppress political speech without violating the 1st Amendment protection of free speech. The Court ruled in favor of free speech rights and against the power of the FEC to suppress political propaganda, i.e., the propaganda film Hillary: the Movie produced by Citizens United Inc.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's not true that corporations are ARTIFICIAL entities "created" by the state.

They existed first, BEFORE they incorporated, before deciding to be changed by the state from a noncorporate entity into a corporate entity. Like an individual or group can move from one location to another, or change its status, buy or sell property, enter into a contractual agreement, etc. -- an entity can change itself, or be changed, but it already existed before the change, so it was not "created" at the moment it changed. And it's not anymore "artificial" than other groups (NONcorporate groups).

This fact refutes at least half the arguments from the "corporations are not people" fanatics. When someone is arrested and incarcerated he becomes something much different, i.e., a prisoner. But the state did not CREATE that person or group which was arrested. And that could be a very significant change in the life of that individual or group which was arrested.

another example: When someone got drafted out of college into the U.S. Army, that was a very radical change in the life of that person. More radical than a change which the individual or group chooses voluntarily. But that draftee (or group of draftees) was not CREATED by the U.S. gov't. This change, INVOLUNTARILY imposed onto the subject, was a greater change than that of a group or individual choosing to incorporate. And the draftee (or group of draftees) DID NOT BECOME SOMETHING ARTIFICIAL, even though undergoing a deep radical change in his/their existence.

No one has refuted this point, though it has been repeated several times, and the "corporations are not people" crusaders continue to assume as a premise that corporations are CREATED by the state.

 

[NoHolyCows]

It's not true that corporations are ARTIFICIAL entities "created" by the state.

They existed first, BEFORE they incorporated, before deciding to be changed by the state from a noncorporate entity into a corporate entity. Like an individual or group can move from one location to another, or change its status, buy or sell property, enter into a contractual agreement, etc. -- an entity can change itself, or be changed, but it already existed before the change, so it was not "created" at the moment it changed. And it's not anymore "artificial" than other groups (NONcorporate groups).

This fact refutes at least half the arguments from the "corporations are not people" fanatics. When someone is arrested and incarcerated he becomes something much different, i.e., a prisoner. But the state did not CREATE that person or group which was arrested. And that could be a very significant change in the life of that individual or group which was arrested.

another example: When someone got drafted out of college into the U.S. Army, that was a very radical change in the life of that person. More radical than a change which the individual or group chooses voluntarily. But that draftee (or group of draftees) was not CREATED by the U.S. gov't. This change, INVOLUNTARILY imposed onto the subject, was a greater change than that of a group or individual choosing to incorporate. And the draftee (or group of draftees) DID NOT BECOME SOMETHING ARTIFICIAL, even though undergoing a deep radical change in his/their existence.

No one has refuted this point, though it has been repeated several times, and the "corporations are not people" crusaders continue to assume as a premise that corporations are CREATED by the state.

You’re missing the distinction entirely. The corporation—not the people forming it—is created by the state. A group of people can exist, meet, protest, form a club—that’s natural association. But the legal entity called a “corporation” with perpetual life, limited liability, the ability to own property, sue, and be sued independent of its members—that only exists because the state grants it legal personhood.

You don’t just “become” a corporation by existing. You file paperwork under statutory law and get state approval. That entity didn’t exist before incorporation; the rights and privileges of that legal shell are artificial and state-conferred. That’s the whole point.

Natural people have rights by virtue of being human. Corporations have powers by virtue of state creation. Conflating the two is either dishonest or confused.

Argument over.

NHC

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

even without the corporations
there can never be "fair" elections
(where all would-be candidates have equal $$$$$$)


(continued from previous Wall of Text)


so we need censorship? suppress free speech?

The people within the corporation already have First Amendment rights — they can donate, speak, protest, and publish. The controversy in Citizens United is about granting that power to the corporation itself, . . .

But this is a group that existed even before it became incorporated. At the moment of incorporation it already had an earlier certain membership and assets or property and had many relationships within the society, and also rights. The moment of incorporation did not change that. It's still the same group with the same rights after incorporation which it had before. What right before does it LOSE? Name one right which the group had before incorporating which it loses (or should lose) as a result of becoming a corporation?

And, does the group take on some NEW power it didn't have before? by incorporating? Presumably it acquires some new benefits and new responsibilities -- just as an individual gaining a driver's license -- but nothing happens which changes it into "not people" who give up any basic rights. OK -- there are some requirements imposed onto the corporation, about keeping records, reporting income or activities, but nothing about giving up any basic rights. Why should their/its basic rights be any different than before?

If this group was a for-profit business prior to incorporating, what has now changed so that the business loses any of the rights it had before? like free speech? or freedom of press or assembly? Just because it incorporated doesn't necessarily change its profit-seeking aspect, or its method of production or distribution. Maybe something changes, or maybe not -- presumably the new status helps it perform better, maybe increase its profits -- but how is that anything other than just to increase or improve what it was already doing anyway? How does any of that mean that now it loses its 1st Amendment rights? Or that it suddenly becomes "not people"?


"granting that power to the corporation itself"?

What power? power to have free speech? like everyone has?
power to publish political propaganda?

Any "power" the corporation gains because of Citizens United is nothing new. Corporations had always had the right to publish political propaganda without limit. That's not any new right to corporations granted by this Court case. The Citizens United decision was only to restore the original 1st Amendment protection to all, including to corporations. The decision was: Yes, the group/corporation has the same right to donate, to speak, protest, and publish, just as the individual members or officers or shareholders have the right to do it. BUT, there are limits on how much the company can donate to a political candidate -- those limits were still upheld by the 2010 Court -- no change -- and such limits have always pertained to individual donors too, not just to corporations.

So again, what's the difference between the individual and the corporation such that one has 1st Amendment rights and the other does not? or Noncorporate groups vs. corporations such that the noncorporation has rights which the corporation does not (or should not) have?

And "granting that power" to corporations is no big deal. ANYONE has the right to do the same, any individual or group has always had the right to publish political propaganda without limit -- the only need for the Citizens United ruling was to simply restore this 1st Amendment free-speech right which everyone including corporations always had going back to the nation's Founding. So this decision was not any special new privilege to corporations, but just a restoration of the original 1st Amendment protection, which was taken away by the aggressive campaign reform law of 2002.

The real controversy in Citizens United is about imposing a special censorship on corporations only -- this is the innovation of the McCain-Feingold reform bill. Never before in U.S. history were corporations (or anyone) singled out for such prohibition/censorship as this new 2002 law placing censorship onto corporations which previously, back to the nation's Founding, had the freedom to publish political propaganda without limit -- the same as all other groups and all individuals had such a right, guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. Before 2002 the only form of special censorship restrictions on corporations was that of the campaign reform laws which were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1976 and 78. (It was mainly the limits on donations to candidates which were upheld.)

solution: form your own corporation

But further, even if one imagines corporations are granted special privileges, whatever they might be, there's no exclusive privilege, because anyone is free to form a corporation if they think that arrangement is more beneficial than doing their business individually or as a noncorporate group. There's no imbalance or unfair advantage to anyone by letting corporations have the same 1st Amendment rights that the individual members have. If incorporating offers a benefit, it's there for everyone to take advantage of. The freedom to incorporate is extended to absolutely everyone, so with no one excluded from "the club" there obviously cannot be any privilege to certain ones given preference over someone else.

It's paranoid to say such a group has an unfair advantage over some other group that's not a corporation, because that other group is perfectly free to incorporate and acquire the same advantages, whatever they may be. What's permitted for everyone to do cannot be called an unfair advantage.

E.g., if you want to have a limited liability advantage, you can form a corporation yourself, and bingo! now you've got limited liability. Just keep your personal assets separate, and then use corporate funds to finance your slander against someone you hate. They can sue the corporation, but not you and your personal assets. So this is no special privilege to some which is denied to others. No one is excluded from forming a corporation in order to gain limited liability.

. . . about granting that power to the corporation itself, which can spend unlimited money on political influence, even . . .

You mean the same power NONcorporations and individuals already have? Why not? What's fair for an individual to do is just as fair for the GROUP or the CORPORATION to do which that individual is a member of, as long as ALL corporations/groups can do the same, being under the same rules. Whatever advantage is gained by means of the corporation status, it's totally accessible and available to anyone, no matter who. Even a foreigner may create a U.S. corporation. You're not answering why you can't just form your own corporation and do the same thing that corporation you're complaining about is doing -- as a corporation it has no unfair advantage over you, since your group is just as free to incorporate and do the same things that corporation is doing.

An individual billionaire or millionaire is free to spend his own money without limits (on himself as a candidate, or also on any political cause he wants to promote). You've not said why this is somehow "fair" and yet it's "unfair" for the billionaire or megacorp to outspend a Hillary or other millionaire candidate. To be consistent you must also demand that millionaires have severe spending limits imposed onto them by the election laws, to make them equal to all the lower-down ordinary-folk candidates who have much fewer resources.

All the winning candidates were supported financially by millionaires, and they could not have won (or even gained ballot status) without having millions of $$$ to spend, which most of their opponents could not afford to do. What reforms are you crusading for which will put the lower-down middle-class workers and small businesspersons on an equal footing with the millionaires you always vote for, with all their funding from their millionaire supporters?

How can you preach that it's unfair for a corporate group to spend beyond some limit but that it's fair for a billionaire or millionaire individual candidate to spend his own assets without limit? Or, even if they're spending money from donors who were persuaded by their charisma or pretty face on a TV show, how is that "fair" to the thousands of normal plain-faced candidates who are rejected out-of-hand because of their boring personality? Obviously such unfairness is extremely common, as hundreds or thousands of candidates have been millionaires who bought votes with their huge resources which the other candidates did not have, and of course also with their attractive personality resources, which they will put to future profit as needed to advance their rise to higher power and status.

Again, there's nothing wrong with exerting influence on people/voters with propaganda to change their minds. Just as the billionaire can spend money on a private jet or a mansion, etc., s/he can also spend it on electioneering. You can't say why there's anything wrong with it, whether it's a billionaire or a group (corporation) collecting the unlimited funds from donors who agree with the corporation's crusade. Or also simply from the corporation's profits. There are some rules about how this is permitted, but the Court has made it legal, and it was never illegal before Citizens United, except after the 2002 reform law -- so for 6 years such spending from the company's profits might have been illegal. But it was ruled legal in all the previous Supreme Court cases, and then again in 2010.

What was illegal was to give unlimited donations to a candidate's campaign.


Why shouldn't it be legal for ANYONE to spend without limit on any political cause they choose, including to promote or condemn any candidate they like or dislike? i.e., ANY group or individual -- why single out any category of people or groups for special exclusion? other than just hate? And you can't give any reason. You're just preaching your own personal anticorporation hate when you whine that it's unfair.

A poor person could just as easily whine that it's unfair for Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and other millionaires to buy their way into political office. Because these and other millionaire candidates outspend thousands/millions of poor people who would like to replace them and do a better job running the country, believing themselves to be just as competent as Bernie or Hillary and all the other millionaire candidates who buy their way into political office and exploit the free publicity and promotion in the media due to their bought-and-paid-for celebrity status.

It's not any more unfair for the billionaires and corporations to buy votes, by paying a higher price than the millionaires below them can pay, than it is for millionaires Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren etc. to likewise buy votes at a higher price than the lower-down middle-class workers or small businesspersons can pay. Whoever has more money than someone else has an unfair advantage. All the candidates who have a chance, including every candidate you ever voted for, would never have acquired ballot status had they not greatly outspent their opponents far beyond a point which the lesser candidates could ever afford to pay.

You're pretending your goal is a "FAIR" system, but the system you promote is just as "UNFAIR" as the system you're condemning. You're satisfied as long as your vote-buying candidate or party wins, and beyond that you and your party don't give a fart how "fair" the system is.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[NoHolyCows]

But this is a group that existed even before it became incorporated. At the moment of incorporation it already had a certain membership and assets or property and had many relationships within the society, and also rights. The moment of incorporation did not change that. It's still the same group with the same rights after incorporation which it had before. What right before does it LOSE? Name one right which the group had before incorporating which it loses (or should lose) as a result of becoming a corporation?

Does the group take on some NEW power it didn't have before? by incorporating? Presumably it acquires some new benefits and new responsibilities -- just as an individual gaining a driver's license -- but nothing happens which changes it into "not people" who give up any basic rights. OK -- there are some requirements imposed onto the corporation, about keeping records, reporting income or activities, but nothing about giving up any basic rights. Why should their/its basic rights be any different than before?

If this group was a for-profit business prior to incorporating, what has now changed so that the business loses any of the rights it had before? like free speech? or freedom of press or assembly? Just because it incorporated doesn't necessarily change its profit-seeking aspect, or its method of production or distribution. Maybe something changes, or maybe not -- presumably the new status helps it perform better, maybe increase its profits -- but how is that anything other than just to increase or improve what it was already doing anyway? How does any of that mean that now it loses its 1st Amendment rights? Or that it suddenly becomes "not people"?


"granting that power to the corporation itself"?

What power? power to have free speech? like everyone has?
power to publish political propaganda?

Any "power" the corporation gains because of Citizens United is nothing new. Corporations had always had the right to publish political propaganda without limit. That's not any new right to corporations granted by this Court case. The Citizens United decision was only to restore the original 1st Amendment protection to all, including to corporations. The decision was: Yes, the group/corporation has the same right to donate, to speak, protest, and publish, just as the individual members or officers or shareholders have the right to do it. BUT, there are limits on how much the company can donate to a political candidate -- those limits were still upheld by the 2010 Court -- no change -- and such limits have always pertained to individual donors too, not just to corporations.

So again, what's the difference between the individual and the corporation such that one has 1st Amendment rights and the other does not? or Noncorporate groups vs. corporations such that the noncorporation has rights which the corporation does not (or should not) have?

And "granting that power" to corporations is no big deal. ANYONE has the right to do the same, any individual or group has always had the right to publish political propaganda without limit -- the only need for the Citizens United ruling was to simply restore this 1st Amendment free-speech right which everyone including corporations always had going back to the nation's Founding. So this decision was not any special new privilege to corporations, but just a restoration of the original 1st Amendment protection, which was taken away by the aggressive campaign reform law of 2002.

The real controversy in Citizens United is about imposing a special censorship on corporations only -- this is the innovation of the McCain-Feingold reform bill. Never before in U.S. history were corporations (or anyone) singled out for such prohibition/censorship as this new 2002 law placing censorship onto corporations which previously, back to the nation's Founding, had the freedom to publish political propaganda without limit -- the same as all other groups and all individuals had such a right, guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. Before 2002 the only form of special censorship restrictions on corporations was that of the campaign reform laws which were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1976 and 78. (It was mainly the limits on donations to candidates which were upheld.)

solution: form your own corporation

But further, even if one imagines corporations are granted special privileges, whatever they might be, there's no exclusive privilege, because anyone is free to form a corporation if they think that arrangement is more beneficial than doing their business individually or as a noncorporate group. There's no imbalance or unfair advantage to anyone by letting corporations have the same 1st Amendment rights that the individual members have. If incorporating offers a benefit, it's there for everyone to take advantage of. The freedom to incorporate is extended to absolutely everyone, so with no one excluded from "the club" there obviously cannot be any privilege to certain ones given preference over someone else.

It's paranoid to say such a group has an unfair advantage over some other group that's not a corporation, because that other group is perfectly free to incorporate and acquire the same advantages, whatever they may be. What's permitted for everyone to do cannot be called an unfair advantage. E.g., if you want to have a limited liability advantage, you can form a corporation yourself, and bingo! now you've got limited liability. Just keep your personal assets separate, and then use corporate funds to finance your slander against someone you hate. They can sue the corporation, but not you and your personal assets. So this is no special privilege to some which is denied to others. No one is excluded from forming a corporation in order to gain limited liability.

You’re just proving the point. The group existed before, yes—but the corporation didn’t. That entity—the one with limited liability, perpetual life, and the ability to aggregate capital shielded from personal risk—is created by law, not nature. It’s not “just a group” anymore. That state-conferred structure is what gives it legal privileges people don’t have, and why it’s not entitled to the same political rights as citizens.

You can form one? Great. That doesn’t mean it’s a person. It means you’re using a legal tool. Tools don’t vote. Tools don’t have conscience. Tools don’t deserve constitutional rights designed for human beings.

This isn’t complicated.

You mean the same power NONcorporations and individuals already have? Why not? What's fair for an individual to do is just as fair for the GROUP or the CORPORATION to do which that individual is a member of, as long as ALL corporations/groups can do the same, being under the same rules. Whatever advantage is gained by means of the corporation status, it's totally accessible and available to anyone, no matter who. Even a foreigner may create a U.S. corporation. You're not answering why you can't just form your own corporation and do the same thing that corporation you're complaining about is doing -- as a corporation it has no unfair advantage over you, since your group is just as free to incorporate and do the same things that corporation is doing.

An individual billionaire or millionaire is free to spend his own money without limits (on himself as a candidate, or also on any political cause he wants to promote). You've not said why this is somehow "fair." To be consistent you must also demand that millionaires have spending limits imposed onto them by the election laws. All the winning candidates were supported financially by millionaires, and they could not have won (or even gained ballot status) without having millions of $$$ to spend, which most of their opponents could not afford to do. What reforms are you crusading for which will put the lower-down middle-class workers and small businesspersons on an equal footing with the millionaires you always vote for, with all their funding from their millionaire supporters?

How can you preach that it's unfair for a corporate group to spend beyond some limit but that it's fair for a billionaire or millionaire individual candidate to spend his own assets without limit? Or, even if they're spending money from donors who were persuaded by their charisma or pretty face on a TV show, how is that "fair" to the thousands of normal plain-faced candidates who are rejected out-of-hand because of their boring personality? Obviously such unfairness is extremely common, as hundreds or thousands of candidates have been millionaires who bought votes with their huge resources which the other candidates did not have, and of course also with their attractive personality resources, which they will put to future profit as needed to advance their rise to higher power and status.

Again, there's nothing wrong with exerting influence on people/voters with propaganda to change their minds. Just as the billionaire can spend money on a private jet or a mansion, etc., s/he can also spend it on electioneering. You can't say why there's anything wrong with it, whether it's a billionaire or a group (corporation) collecting the unlimited funds from donors who agree with the corporation's crusade. Or also simply from the corporation's profits. There are some rules about how this is permitted, but the Court has made it legal, and it was never illegal before Citizens United, except after the 2002 reform law -- so for 6 years such spending from the company's profits might have been illegal. But it was ruled legal in all the previous Supreme Court cases.

What was illegal was to give unlimited donations to a candidate's campaign.


Why shouldn't it be legal for ANYONE to spend without limit on any political cause they choose, including to promote or condemn any candidate they like or dislike? i.e., ANY group or individual -- why single out any category of people or groups for special exclusion? other than just hate? And you can't give any reason. You're just preaching your own personal anticorporation hate when you whine that it's unfair. A poor person could just as easily whine that it's unfair for Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and other millionaires to buy their way into political office. Because these and other millionaire candidates outspend thousands/millions of poor people who would like to replace them and do a better job running the country, believing themselves to be just as competent as Bernie or Hillary and all the other millionaire candidates who buy their way into political office and exploit the free publicity and promotion in the media due to their bought-and-paid-for celebrity status.

It's not any more unfair for the billionaires and corporations to buy votes, by paying a higher price than the millionaires below them can pay, than it is for millionaires Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren etc. to likewise buy votes at a higher price than the lower-down middle-class workers or small businesspersons can pay. Whoever has more money than someone else has an unfair advantage. All the candidates who have a chance, including every candidate you ever voted for, would never have acquired ballot status had they not greatly outspent their opponents far beyond a point which the lesser candidates could ever afford to pay.

You're pretending your goal is a "FAIR" system, but the system you promote is just as "UNFAIR" as the system you're condemning. You're satisfied as long as your vote-buying candidate or party wins, and beyond that you and your party don't give a fart how "fair" the system is.

Your entire response collapses under one simple truth: equal access to a legal structure doesn’t mean equal influence under it.

Yes, anyone can form a corporation—but not everyone has the means to pour millions into elections through it. That’s the issue. Corporate personhood magnifies existing inequality by giving vast, concentrated wealth the same constitutional protections as human conscience and voice.

You keep asking what makes corporations different. Here it is: they are scalable financial engines built to protect assets and maximize returns, not moral agents exercising conscience. They don’t vote, they don’t die, and they’re not accountable to the public.

This debate was never about whether someone can form a corporation. It’s about whether that tool—designed for profit, shielded by limited liability—should be given the same speech rights as a living, breathing citizen.

That’s the difference. And you haven’t refuted it—you’ve just dodged it.

NHC