[tines]

I thought that the "corporations are people" meme was the actual rationale for why corpos "should" be allowed to spend money on elections: spending money for political purposes is free speech, and people have the right to free speech, and corpos are people, so corpos have the right to spend money for political purposes.

[gruez]

>spending money for political purposes is free speech, and people have the right to free speech, and corpos are people, so corpos have the right to spend money for political purposes.

From wikipedia:

>The majority also held that the First Amendment's free press clause protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the speaker's identity. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have free speech rights under the First Amendment.

In other words, corporations have the right to spend money for political purposes not because of corporate personhood or "corporations are people too", it's because first amendment protections apply to associations of people. This covers corporations, but also includes other groups like trade unions.

[tines]

The flaw in this reasoning is that corporations are not merely associations of people; they are a special kind of association of people, which can be regulated specially. Hence, I think, why some have stripped away this motivated language and reduced it to the more honest and obviously absurd "corporations are people too."

[gruez]

>The flaw in this reasoning is that corporations are not merely associations of people; they are a special kind of association of people, which can be regulated specially.

You realize republicans can make the same argument to bash unions?

[monocasa]

They already have. Unions generally can't donate to political campaigns, and can't do things like strike in solidarity with other unions which would be pretty clearly be speech if we're counting corporate donations to political campaigns as speech.

[gruez]

> Unions generally can't donate to political campaigns

???

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/carpenters-joiners-union/su...

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/service-employees-internati...

>and can't do things like strike in solidarity with other unions which would be pretty clearly be speech if we're counting corporate donations to political campaigns as speech.

Seems like a stretch to lump industrial action with political donations.

[monocasa]

> ???

It's complex, but those are not donations to a candidate, even more so than the normal PAC and Super PAC song and dance. You have to give up your non profit status to donate more directly to a candidates campaign.

> Seems like a stretch to lump industrial action with political donations.

Seems like a stretch to say that political donations are speech and should be protected, but literal picketing isn't.

[XorNot]

That was the Citizens United reasoning yes and it was wholly absurd unless you really wanted to empower the executive class.