Corporations are not people, and the Supreme Court has never found that they are -- this soundbite is a misunderstanding of Citizens United v. FEC.

Interesting. Did the SC (in an 1888 case) not say: "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution."

And does 1 USC not also say:

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—

the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;"

as well? I'm not sure how to align those statements with your comment. Perhaps it's a subject that only someone with a law degree can discern the meaningful difference between the claims?

That's just not true. Corporations have been recognized as legal persons in the US for well over a century prior to Citizens United, in both judicial precedent and federal statutes.

I agree with what I assume you believe - that this ought not be the case, and corporations should be more restricted in their rights than natural persons. But simply claiming it to be so is willful ignorance.

The legal fiction of corporate personhood does not grant them all the rights of a natural person. For example, in SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal ruled that corporations did not have a constitutional right to privacy, despite the California constitution extending privacy rights to all people.

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/court-holds-corporation...

Corporations are "legal persons" in the sense that the same rules apply to them as to people in some areas where that makes sense.

This is mostly a practical matter, so instead of writing a duplicate set of laws for corporations and people, the legislators have said that "for these laws, just apply laws to corporations as you would to people".

...or that's how I've had it explained to me.

> Corporations are not people,

Corporations are exactly didtinxt legal persons and that's the central point of incorporation.

> the Supreme Court has never found that they are

It has, in fact, found that they are legally persons and that is the whole point of corporations (though the first cases to do so use the term “individuality” for what a modern writer might term “personhood”.) Key early cases include Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819); Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet 21 U.S. 464 (1823); and Providence Bank v. Billings, 29 U.S. 514 (1830).

But, beyond these early cases using language that might be mistaken by a modern reader, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the court, in addressing the 14th amendment, found that “[u]nder the designation of ‘person’ there is no doubt that a private corporation is included.”

Corporate personhood has a very long history in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

people =/= person.

All people are persons, but not all persons are people. I enjoy Stewart, Colbert and Oliver as much as the next person (vernacular usage, not legal), but they've done a lot of damage to the national discourse on this topic.

> All people are persons, but not all persons are people

People is a plural of person (persons is also a plural of persons); all persons are people just as all people are persons, the two terms are in this use synonyms (people also has a singular use.)

Not all people or persons are part of “the people” as that is used in some Constitutional provisions, but 14th Amendment due process rests on the definition of “person”, not “the people”, and in any case the Supreme Court has found that the distinguishing feature of “the people” is attachment to the national community, not natural (as opposed to artificial/juridical) personhood, so U.S. corporations are, Constitutionally, all of “persons”, “people”, and included within “the people”.

They are people associating freely, however, which is protected under the First Amendment.

> the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

I believe current law is that people have the right to peaceably assemble only for the purpose of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.

It sounds wrong, but there it is.

That's part of a longer list of rights. Clearly they are not all about petitioning the government.

> corporations are 'people'

A corporation, is, by definition, a group of people, yes. And those people who make up the group have rights that are protected by the constitution.

Or in other words, a corporation is the plural form of the word 'person', in many situations.

> A corporation, is, by definition, a group of people, yes.

No, it's not. It is, legally, a single person. It is not a group of people, though one or more other people (all or some of which may also be corporations, governments, or other legal persons that are not natural persons) have authority to direct it as laid out in its charter. But the corporation is not, and is clearly and legally distinct from, any and all those people, individually or in any combination.

What I am saying is, that a corporation does not have a mouth. Only people have mouths.

Therefore any time you a preventing an entity with a mouth from speaking, you are by definition preventing a person from speaking.