[hwillis]

Totally beside the point. Verbatim from Citizens United:

> The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.”

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/

SCOTUS held that coorporations (and more broadly "associations of people") have the same rights to free speech that any individual does.

[IgorPartola]

That is not nearly the same thing as saying that they are people. Just that when it comes to this particular right, the way it is applied is not functionally different. That’s like saying that because corporations pay taxes they are also people.

[hwillis]

Yes. Whether or not they are "people" is irrelevant. They have the same rights to free speech. You are nitpicking.

[IgorPartola]

Law is all about nitpicking.

The point you and others try to make is that corporations are people as a result of CU and so other human rights apply to them. This is backwards. SCOTUS and lower courts basically established that free speech applies to corporations same as individuals. But it did not establish their personhood. This is exactly equivalent to saying that a corporation has to pay taxes like a person. It does not make it a person.

So what people get wrong is they say “if a corporation is a person then it gets to do X”. Thats incorrect, nobody except talking heads on TV called it a person. Similarly “if a corporation has the right to free speech it has the right to do X” is incorrect. Having one right does not confer all rights. Again think of it as the idea of corporations get to pay taxes. People get to pay taxes. This did not make corporations people and did not confer any other rights onto corporations.