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).
> 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.
The "political spending" in the case of Citizens United was the production and dissemination of a propaganda film. If the release of a film can be restricted, why not a press release as well?
From wikipedia: "Broadcasting the film would have been a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibited any corporation, non-profit organization, or labor union from making an "electioneering communication" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time."
If the law bans "electioneering communication", could not an electioneering press release be considered such a banned communication as well?
You're probably right. Most of the attention has focused on the financial angle. That said, organizations do have pretty broad latitude to advocate for laws and other outcomes. Conservation organizations do it all the time for example.
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.
IMO, a lot of people who didn't like the decision (whether because of which justices decided it or for some other reason) latched onto the "SCOTUS decided that corporations are people" shorthand because it seems absurd taken literally. Corporations are clearly not people (natural persons) the way you and I are.
But saying that corporate personhood shouldn't include political donations as part of their free speech rights, while a perfectly reasonable position and I might even agree, doesn't make as good a soundbite.
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?