[simplefish]

I agree. Corporations are not people, and should have no rights; in particular they should have no rights to free speech or property. I look forward to a day when the government should be able to censor the speech, compel speech, and take the property of corporations whom it dislikes.

I am especially eager to see this rule applied to corporations such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Greenpeace, the ACLU, and more. These nefarious corporations have damaged the careers of upstanding politicians, leaked vital national security documents, and undermined American prosperity with their treasonous demands for "rule of law" and "protecting the environment". Pah. No doubt President Romney will take the lead in muzzling the ACLU, Greenpeace, and every newspaper and television station in America the moment this amendment is passed.

And then there's Google. And Amazon. Or Apple! I mean, we all know that Apple has more cash on hand than the US government; once this amendment passes there will be no constitutional bar on the government just taking it. Won't that be nice?

(Back in the land of reality, it might be worth noting that according to the decision in Citizens United, corporations are not people. Yeah, I know, some talking head on MSNBC told you that it said they were. How does it feel to realize someone you trusted lied to you? At any rate, any amendment on this topic would either do absolutely nothing, since it would just restate current constitutional law, OR it would be a utter disaster beyond easy comprehension.[1][2])

[1]: http://volokh.com/2012/04/26/the-peoples-rights-amendment-an...

[2]: http://volokh.com/2012/04/26/the-potential-impact-of-the-peo...

[dangersx]

Hm... Interesting point of view. Amazingly you missed Fox "News" and WallstreetJ in your rant, but never forget the ACLU. Please turn off your propaganda box.

Also, Citizens United said money is speech and says nothing about person hood. It was a ruling in 1918 that allows corporations to be recognized as a human being => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward).

"He read the ganda!"

[simplefish]

I'm struggling to believe that you really didn't notice the sarcasm in my comment. :) Obviously you can swap all the names on the list for right wing equivalents; it would be just as horrible.

Also, I must reiterate: Companies are not people. No supreme court decision has so held. And Dartmouth College v Woodward does not so hold. (Dartmouth holds that companies have the same right to contract as people. It doesn't hold that they are people. The logic is that only people have rights, but they don't lose those rights just because they organize their affairs along a corporate form. And to protect the real rights which real people have, it is sometimes necessary to allow corporations to exercise those rights.[1])

Oh, and while we're at it, Citizens United doesn't hold that money is speech. (Citizens United holds that money facilitates speech, not that it is speech, and that any restriction on things which facilitate a protected action is a - potentially unconstitutional - burden on that activity.)

Your understanding of these cases seems...lacking.

[1]: If you want an example: I get a second mortgage and sink all my savings into a start-up. You can't now come and seize my company, nor my company's assets, without depriving a real person (me) of real property. But I have the right to due process, and by necessity that extends to my company's assets. On the other hand, you can restrict my company from voting (as is, in fact, done) without impairing the rights of any real person. I would lose everything if you take my company's assets; I lose nothing if you don't let my company vote. Every single right that the courts have extended to companies follows this logic: That companies need this right protected in order to protect the rights of real people. The New York Times has free speech not because the Times is a person, but because real people with free speech rights wish to exercise those rights via the Times, and restricting the free speech rights of the Times would be an unconstitutional burden on the rights of those people.