03-28-2013, 01:58 PM
Mr Downtown wrote:
I don't know how this concept has gotten so twisted in popular discussion. Corporations have always been legal "persons" in the sense that they can undertake actions, be held responsible for them, and have duties. And there's nothing new or novel about the First Amendment applying to them...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html
A small snippet of Justice Stevens dissent in the Citizens United decision:
The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.
The issue isn't really whether or not corporations can be given some Constitutional protection as a legal entity "person", but whether or not their free speech rights should be of the same extent as those of actual living people.