I'm not a deep ecologist, so I don't ascribe to that. You do you though!

My argument: Citizens United characterized corporations as "associations of citizens" to reach a result that is functionally equivalent to saying corporations have 1A rights so long as they use a third party entity. This holding was not dictated by precedent, and the court consciously rejected an approach that would have adjudicated the question in Citizen's United's favor on narrower grounds without doing violence to the primary purpose of the statute(s) in question.

I feel like you need to reread what he wrote lol

You literally said "donation". That colloquially means money, but okay. If we're debating semantics then the conversation has already exceeded it's usefulness. Sorry for probing what clearly hasn't been thought out.

> Personally, I think Citizen's United is an intentionally overbroad ruling that's predicated on creating a false choice and erring on the side of our corporate overlords (look at their waiver analysis and tell me it's applied the same way in other cases).

That's a far different statement than your original claim that "Corporate personhood is a legal fiction, or at least it was until Citizens United..."

I believe that a conditional exemption would have been consistent with judicial minimalism, stare decisis, and deference to a coequal branch.

Personally, I think Citizen's United is an intentionally overbroad ruling that's predicated on creating a false choice and erring on the side of our corporate overlords (look at their waiver analysis and tell me it's applied the same way in other cases).

I also think they entirely devalued the interests in actual corruption, perceived corruption, and foreign interference.

Yes, the definition should be expansive enough to include rivers and mountains and individual viruses and whole herds of deer.

I do the charity, I don't pay others to do it for me.

My goal is to love life and use technology to replace killing. Even if it takes a long time.

Did you actually read the argument though? The alternatives available to the Supreme Court were to strike down so many laws and rulings that for-profit companies could directly engage in electioneering, or carve out an exemption so conditional that it effectively wouldn't be useful for anyone else, therefore infringing on rights it shouldn't. And the Court couldn't find against Citizens United after the FEC made clear that they believed they could and would censor political books in the wake of such a decision.

[removed]

Same but if you're extending that to parasites then why not viruses and bacteria and what not? At what point does it become an exercise in futility?

I mean I know this is just a virtue signal and you aren't actually donating to charity whenever you take an antibiotic or whatever but it's an interesting logic to probe regardless.

That's how I originally thought the court would rule. A decision that permits aggregating small donations while rejecting unlimited donations from for-profit entities was floated by the FEC and explicitly rejected by the court. In other words, SCOTUS explicitly rejected a decision that would allow for your hypo but would restrict unlimited donations from for-profit companies. (Read section II D of the opinion, I don't have pincites).

Why, what don’t you like about it? What do these terms mean?

Its only partly okay,for now. If you appreciate their sacrifice, don't treat them poorly, and strive to create a better world without the need to subsist on other beings.

Edit: The people we eat for food today, will hopefully see they were an essential part of making the world a better place for whatever family they have left(that we didn't eat).

> However, I would say that describing a corporation as an association of natural persons is just a theory of "corporate personhood" by another name.

I wouldn't. Think about it this way: what if you wanted to put out a political ad? You obviously don't have enough money yourself. But if you and 10,000 of your closest friends pooled your money, you could. But how do you store all that money while you're collecting it? How do you spend it? If you give it to Fred no strings attached, there's nothing stopping Fred from keeping the money for himself. So you need some mechanism that gives Fred conditional access to the money so he can only spend it on the political ad. We call that mechanism a "corporation".

Citizens United recognized that the only practical way for people to engage in certain exercises of their rights was collectively, so restrictions on corporations specifically formed for political purposes were necessarily infringements on the rights of individuals.

That sounds fancy, but what exactly do you mean?

You might wanna update yourself on what they’re actually doing.

Don't kill stuff? Farming kills lots of tiny animals in the ground, why is it OK?

Not joking. I try to show kindness to my fellow life forms.

Racism, sexism, and nationalism are the decadent obsessions of a dying civilization.

These people are making entirely too much money to have no liability.

Again, people are making the decisions.

That's the difference between them and a company.

People are doing fucked up things because ultimately nothing will happen to them and the stock holders will be happy.

You understand laws can be changed?

These will seem like atrocious notions one day.

It's a subtle distinction, but you're right. However, I would say that describing a corporation as an association of natural persons is just a theory of "corporate personhood" by another name.

I don't think there's a functional difference between restricting a sovereign's ability to distinguish between the rights held by natural vs. corporate persons and re-characterizing corporations as associations of natural persons that are entitled to the same rights as it's constituent members.

Edit: although the decision didn't apply directly to for-profit corporation, this only required those entities to establish a subsidiary entity to aggregate donations. It's a distinction without a difference.

If the corporate charter gets revoked, it ceases to exist.

But then you have the problem of what to do with the assets.