Comment by fennecbutt
Comment by fennecbutt 12 hours ago
Oh I didn't how that, thanks for the lesson.
Tbf it just sounds...so American, so I assumed, my bad. But East India Company was involved...whew I guess that does make sense, oof.
Comment by fennecbutt 12 hours ago
Oh I didn't how that, thanks for the lesson.
Tbf it just sounds...so American, so I assumed, my bad. But East India Company was involved...whew I guess that does make sense, oof.
People also get confused about the Citizens United ruling. It had nothing to do with corporate personhood.
The ruling said that since a person has first amendment rights, those same rights extend to a group of people—any group—whether it’s a non profit organization, a corporation, or something else.
What is unique in the US is the interaction between corporate personhood and our First Amendment and the way that our courts have applied that to limit political campaign finance laws, and a lot of “corporate personhood” controversy is really about that, not actually about corporate personhood as a broad concept.