[ZitchDog]

Not correct: A share is a contract issued by the corporation entitling its owner to a share of future profits. So you're not buying a corporation, just engaging in a contract with it.

I hate Citizens United as much as the next guy, but this isn't a good argument against it.

[nzeid]

No, the established language is very precise and you can run this by any source. Shareholders collectively own corporations by way of equity.

[usrusr]

What about non-voting shares? Can it be ownership if you are not included in decisions? I've never really thought about it, but now I believe that what GP was describing is exactly how those are made (or should be made). So at least not entirely wrong (no wait, they would also include a share of assets on dissolution, but that too can be done through a contract with the entity owned by regular shareholders)

[lmm]

> A share is a contract issued by the corporation entitling its owner to a share of future profits. So you're not buying a corporation, just engaging in a contract with it.

A contract of indentured servitude (if you consider it a person), which we consider a form of slavery and therefore illegal.

[Tabular-Iceberg]

Why does the next guy hate Citizens United? I’m not American, so this is the first time I’m hearing about them.

I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC and it seems to me like a plain reading of the first amendment supports CU’s position.

Wouldn’t the opposing view imply that you are allowed to have political opinions, but only as long as you go at it alone and don’t organize too much with others?

For all I know that might indeed be a better way of running society, but that’s definitely going to take a big constitutional amendment.

[mcv]

The real issue is not so much the speech, but that money is considered speech in the US, so Citizens United apparently gives corporations the right to donate to political campaigns. A lot of people would like to stop that channel for corruption.