[hrimfaxi]

Because a corporation is a group of people, and a group of people don't lose their freedom of speech just because they joined a collective.

And corporations can stand for things. They can have missions and use funds to effect speech in support of causes that align with their beliefs.

[mcv]

Is a corporation really a group of people? Of course people are involved with the corporation, but the corporation doesn't represent its employees, shareholders, management or customers. It's a separate legal entity with complex relationships with its employees, management, shareholders and customers, but with its own rights and responsibilities.

There are organisation forms that are a lot closer to being just a group of people working together, like co-ops and firms maybe. I'm not entirely up to date on all options in English-speaking countries (which will vary of course, but the Dutch Maatschap is probably as close as you can get to a company that's just a group of people.

[hrimfaxi]

Co-ops and firms sound like they are a subset of corporation. If they aren't, what makes them different in your mind? Corporations can take many forms and organize around many different principles.

[mcv]

Isn't a corporation incorporated or something like that? With limited liability and everything? Or does it also cover tiny 1 person outfits? I admit English isn't my first language, but I've always understood it to a be a specific form of company.

[hrimfaxi]

I looked into Maatschaps and understand where you are coming from now.

[Attrecomet]

>the Dutch Maatschap is probably as close as you can get to a company that's just a group of people.

So the Dutch just go ahead and call a group of people a "mash up"!