[tr3ndyBEAR]

Citizen's United is not the only case relevant to the idea of corporate personhood. There's a whole history of corporations earning rights usually reserved for people.

You can read the wikipedia page for "corporate personhood" if you want to learn more about the history of it and specific cases and rights afforded to corporations.

[chrstphrhrt]

Since I just read about this in a course, the main reference (at least for Canada/UK/Commonwealth) is the Salomon case from 1895: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salomon_v_A_Salomon_%26_Co_Ltd

So, not new.

I think people overreact to hearing that corporations are (legal) "persons" when in fact they are not anything like natural persons (no body, no constitutional rights). As I understand it, directors and officers are the ones held personally liable in criminal matters, but corporations can still be liable for negligence and breach of contract etc. IANAL.

Sounds like it is different in the US. Does citizens united somehow make corporations more like people?

[dodobirdlord]

It did not, in the sense that it only clarified a constitutional issue. The crux is that while corporations are complex legal fictions, they are still ultimately property owned and managed by actual people with constitutional rights. Corporations inherit on incorporation the constitutional protections that the incorporators would have if they were acting directly. In the words used in the majority opinion of the court, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."