A shareholder (i.e. part owner of the corporation) has chosen to "peaceably assemble" with other like minded individuals by buying stock. They have elected representatives (directors on the board of directors) to further the interests of the group.
Sometimes the group's interests include political issues. For example directors of Widget Corp may well want to promote a candidate running against the candidate running on a "Ban Widgets because they are 'addictive'" platform.
This is no different than people joining together to support candidates who are pro-choice or pro-"life". They pay dues and make donations to an organization (such as the Planned Parenthood Action Fund) which supports the individual's interests. The organization then decides who to support and makes donations or otherwise advance those those candidates' campaigns through a PAC. In some cases some of those individuals also make "in kind" contributions under the direct organized umbrella of the political entity (such as spending hours "door knocking" or "phone banking") that, combined with their cash donations to the candidate, exceed the $3,500 individual contribution limit.
Just because one assembled with others to further their financial interests doesn't suddenly mute them or take away their First Amendment rights. For example, some donate to the DSA because they think they or their family will benefit financially if the DSA candidates get elected and can push through certain legislation. Surely that their interest is, at least in part, financial does not mute them.
That group can have the legal fiction of the corporation for liability reasons. They can also, separately, assemble as a group for political speech, each using their own rights as a person. That corporation is not a person and has no right to speech. Their group for political speech in turn represents them as people and does not shield them from liability.
We've unfortunately conflated this, to our detriment. Legal fictions don't have rights. People do.
Directors of Widget Corp can group together separately from Widget Corp and exercise their personal rights, or they can fuck off. Widget Corp isn't a person and has no rights.
You are confusing non-profits with for-profit corporations. For profit corporations (the kind with shareholders) are legally required to behave selfishly (the profit motive) which means, in practice, that corporations are their own agents which act independently of the shareholder.
That’s because corporate board members and executives would be personally liable if they did anything but allow the corporation to act like a raging sociopath. That’s the definition of “fiduciary duty”. Corporations are, in effect, autonomous, unaligned evil AIs.
You can't have non-profit corporations donate to politics, because it's so easy for a corporation to finance a non-profit to do the donations for them.
A shareholder (i.e. part owner of the corporation) has chosen to "peaceably assemble" with other like minded individuals by buying stock. They have elected representatives (directors on the board of directors) to further the interests of the group.
Sometimes the group's interests include political issues. For example directors of Widget Corp may well want to promote a candidate running against the candidate running on a "Ban Widgets because they are 'addictive'" platform.
This is no different than people joining together to support candidates who are pro-choice or pro-"life". They pay dues and make donations to an organization (such as the Planned Parenthood Action Fund) which supports the individual's interests. The organization then decides who to support and makes donations or otherwise advance those those candidates' campaigns through a PAC. In some cases some of those individuals also make "in kind" contributions under the direct organized umbrella of the political entity (such as spending hours "door knocking" or "phone banking") that, combined with their cash donations to the candidate, exceed the $3,500 individual contribution limit.
Just because one assembled with others to further their financial interests doesn't suddenly mute them or take away their First Amendment rights. For example, some donate to the DSA because they think they or their family will benefit financially if the DSA candidates get elected and can push through certain legislation. Surely that their interest is, at least in part, financial does not mute them.