[NoPiece]

If you read the article, it doesn't ignore those facts. Those benefits are the point of corporations, and the "personhood" a side effect.

Sure there are strings attached, but speech goes directly to the rights of the collective. Would you support a law banning corporations from printing newspapers or newsletters? You have to be careful when you start taking away the most basic rights.

[bluedanieru]

Perhaps, but again, I'm not arguing that corporations should or shouldn't be able to do X, only that they have no 'rights' as such. If a group of people want to retain those rights, they can always act collectively without first asking the state for special treatment. And, of course they retain their rights as individual persons, no matter what.

Oh, and I totally read the article? Is this kind of snarky reply just sort of a default thing to do when you disagree with someone now? In that case: if you read the article, you will not find that it addresses these points I have made at all.

[NoPiece]

I didn't intend to be snarky, I really did assume you didn't read the article becasue you said the article ignored the legal and tax benefits, and the it does mention both.

If you believe that the government can regulate the free speech of a corporation, where does the limit end? Can they say that Newspapers that are owned by corporations don't have complete freedom to publish what they want? Let's say they passed a law saying no corporate political speech within 1 month of an election - would that mean no New York Times endorsements?. It is safer to keep free speech as close to absolute as possible.

[bluedanieru]

>Can they say that Newspapers that are owned by corporations don't have complete freedom to publish what they want? Let's say they passed a law saying no corporate political speech within 1 month of an election - would that mean no New York Times endorsements?

Yes, that's exactly what it means! We do the same thing with unions, and with religious organizations that are tax-exempt. What makes corporations so special?

You are, of course, always free to decline the privileges granted to a corporation. Draw up some contracts between you and your partners and write whatever you want, whenever you want. If your newspaper is guilty of libel, you may be liable for that. If your newspaper goes bankrupt and owes money all over town, you might be on the hook for it personally. Accept that in the course of securing privileges natural persons do not enjoy, your corporation may be asked to give up rights that natural persons possess.

Much like patents and copyright, corporations are a legal fiction, invented by society, for the benefit of society. On all three counts, the balance of power has shifted heavily in favor of patent holders, copyright holders, and corporations. This does not indicate some natural law, but rather corruption in our own governments.

[NoPiece]

I don't really disagree about the shift in power, but it doesn't have anything inherently to do with the structure of corporations (liability shield, "person", tax status). If you want to disallow corporations from political donations, then you are blocking 1000's of small businesses from having a voice while allowing billionaires like David Koch and George Soros have unfettered access to politicians. Whatever your particular concern is rooted in, there is probably a general solution (e.g., public financing of campaigns) other than singling out corporations which are a useful and diverse group of entities.

[bluedanieru]

Again, there would be nothing stopping the owners of those small businesses from donating to political campaigns, and fully exercising all of their other rights.

[NoPiece]

Then why do you care if they do it through their corporation?