[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.

[ghaff]

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.