How they are people when they donate money but obviously not people when they are given money. Because that would be socialism which is bad. Self serving fuckers.

the supreme court never said corporations are people.

they are "persons", which is a different legal concept than "people" or "natural persons".

generally, "people" or "natural persons" are actual human beings.

"persons" includes both actual human beings and other non-human entities that nevertheless have certain legal rights, such as business entities which have the right to sue, file for bankruptcy protection, etc.


citizens united was merely one in a series of cases that expanded the rights of non-human persons, particularly in the realm of political contributions.

the fixation on the term "persons", and in particularly confounding it with "people" doesn't help our cause. the proper focus is to object to the expansion of rights of non-human entities, because these are harmful to the rights of actual human beings and/or redundant with the rights actual human beings already have -- an owner of a business already has political contributions rights as an actual human being; they don't need or deserve additional political rights through however many businesses they care to create.

You should have limited rights. They go hand in hand.

at least if you have the money for the filing fees and such.

so if humans are limited to $2800 per election, but if i'm rich and so inclined, i could create 100 corporations that don't really do anything other than funnel money to political campaigns.

in fact, corporations can make unlimited contributions to pacs under current law. there are limits on who much a pac can contribute to a campaign, but multiple pacs can be created to funnel massive money into campaigns.


never mind the lack of transparency, allowing foreign money to be concealed....

of loop holes.