noname2200 said:
My understanding is that it is largely the same in the United States, in that the corporation is a single, legally-distinct entity from its owner(s). To the best of my knowledge, it has always been treated as such. However, through what I believe is a mixture of oversight, tradition, and at-the-time pragmatism, the corporation in America is legally treated under the law as a (single, distinct, and separate) person, albeit not a natural person. Note that I said "treated under the law." Not "held as under the Constitution." Since it is a person, legally speaking, the Supreme Court has held that it is afforded some of the protections of the Consitution, most notably the Fourteenth Amendment. I concede that I am not an expert on this matter, and may be wrong, which is why I requested clarification rather than challenged the statement. However, I am more confident than not that the above is true and correct. |
That's very much not the case. Which is why i keep saying coporate personhood does no apply.
"The majority argued that the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money unconstitutionally limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Majority_Opinion
in otherwords. It's because Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are not mutually exclusive rights.
