[kickout]

The population of the US is roughly ~330M

[PopAlongKid]

But don't forget to add corporations to the total, because they are people too according to SCOTUS.

[ghaff]

Corporations have had certain characteristics of people as long as they've existed. Do you want a corporation to be able to enter a contract that isn't with a specific person within the corporation, for example? Corporations also have freedom of the press/freedom of speech. The question in that decision was whether political spending by corporations was part of the free speech right. There's no question more broadly that corporations can put out a press release saying more or less anything (truthful) that they want.

This is a really lazy trope whatever you think of the specific decision's result (or the reasoning).

[ketzu]

I see multiple ways of interpreting what you said:

1. SCOTUS considers corporations 'natural persons' in their decisions

2. SCOTUS considers 'corporate personhood' to encompass too many rights, you believe should be exclusive for 'natural persons'

3. Possible misunderstanding around the term 'corporate personhood'

Could you clarify a bit? I've seen a lot of (3.) on discussions around this, while claiming essentially (1.) happens or (2.) is what peopel try to complain about.

[OkayPhysicist]

When you really think about it, Citizen's United makes a lot of sense as a decision. It seems self evident to me that a non-profit trying to, say, save the local wetlands, should be able to make political statements like "Don't vote for Dave, Dave wants to pave our wetlands". Likewise, labor unions should be able to campaign against politicians trying to attack their ability to exist. Okay, so, only non-profit enterprises can engage in political speech. That still leaves you with the whole PAC thing, but maybe it's an improvement. What about Creedance Clearwater Revival? Or Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth? Their art was certainly political, does that mean they should be barred from selling it?