but Citizens United takes it way too far. It is wrecking our democracy. I support any law that will take corporate money out of politics.

...also taking all union money out of it. Unions are not people either. I could be wrong, but I don't see them getting rid of one without getting rid of the other.

of small donors, not a couple of billionaires....see the difference, sir?

Most companies are owned by millions of small investors (through 401(k)'s, pensions, mutual funds, etc).

Just watch, I don't see one getting cut out without the other.

I believe the argument will be made. Nothing is stopping those millions of individuals from donating to a politician or campaign. Why does a union need to make the contributions on their behalf? Likewise, nothing is stopping the millions that own a given company's stock from donating to a politician or campaign. Why does the company need to make the contribution on their behalf?

In regards to the union, I remember a case a few years back about a teacher in a Great Lake state. State law required she be a member of union (which I don't oppose) and pay dues (which I also don't oppose). However, her husband was a right winger running for office and the very union she was required by law to donate to was using her money to oppose her husband. I have a problem with that.

For that reason, I can see people saying NO organization has the right to take money from a large group of people and then use that money for political purposes unless the contribution is strictly voluntary and the sole purpose of the entity of for political purposes.

advantage over the middle class, part of being allowed to be corporations is that they are restricted in their money to politics, while the middle class can collectivize and play near equally.

It is all part of a bigger social contract. When unions were stronger the rules were being obeyed, now they are not, and look at the inequality result. Because the contract was broken by the rich.

If you say corporations should have no rights, tell me what you'll do when President Cruz issues an Executive Order confiscating the assets of a corporation he doesn't like -- such as, for example, Democratic Underground LLC.

If it happened today, the DU admins' lawyer would hustle into court and point to the Fifth Amendment, under which no person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. In fact, the case would be clear enough that DU would probably be awarded its attorneys' fees.

If, however, before Cruz acts, the Constitution has been amended to provide that a corporation isn't a person, then that argument isn't available. Attorney General Taitz will point out that DU, a limited liability corporation, isn't a "person" within the meaning of the Due Process Clause.

I know, Cruz will never really be President. But there really are right-wing state governments in places like North Carolina. They're constrained by the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, which is also limited to protecting persons.

A final point is that abolishing corporate personhood wouldn't do anything about the McCutcheon decision, which allowed unlimited spending by individuals.

I approve of the approach that's condemned in the linked article: Amend to allow regulation of campaign spending, by corporations or by humans, while continuing to require the government at all levels to observe basic due process, whether it's dealing with corporations or with humans.