This is very strange to me. You sue Comcast, the corporation, of course. There's nothing inherent to the label "people" that allows people to own property or have accounts, nor anything inherent to the label "corporations" the prevents corporations from owning property and having accounts. We could call them "non-person property-holders" or "obbgobblegooks" for all I care, and decide on whatever rules we want.
Isn't it generally quite clear when an owner is purchasing something personal with their own money as opposed to when an owner is authorizing a purchase of something for their corporation with the corporation's money? In theory, what's to prevent us from declaring that corporations are not people, are allowed to have money, property, goods, and debt and are not allowed to spend their money on, among other things, advertising?
This isn't to say that doing so prevents any sort of non-individual spending on advertising. But saying that "corporations have to be people" and "we can't impose any additional control over corporation spending because actually the owners do the spending" seems irrelevant and incorrect.
There's nothing inherent to the label "people" that allows people to own property or have accounts, nor anything inherent to the label "corporations" the prevents corporations from owning property and having accounts. We could call them "non-person property-holders" or "obbgobblegooks" for all I care, and decide on whatever rules we want.
Yes, we could redefine the term "personhood" to (in the legal context) refer to something else, and then use the word "obbgobblegooks" to refer to the concept that personhood currently refers to.
In theory, what's to prevent us from declaring that corporations are not people, are allowed to have money, property, goods, and debt and are not allowed to spend their money on, among other things, advertising?
The same thing that prevents us from declaring that the constitution doesn't apply to printing presses; the free speech rights of their owners.
If you want to argue against Citizens United, and say that the government should be allowed to apply prior restraints to free speech that uses property, go ahead and do that. But none of this has anything to do with corporate personhood.
Similarly, your right to name your ship "SS Ilovebush" has nothing to do with ship personhood - that's just your free speech right as a guy with a ship and a paintbrush.
It sounds like you don't have any complaints about the actual phenomenon that is commonly referred to as "corporate personhood," and that your only complaint is about the label itself.
This is very strange to me. You sue Comcast, the corporation, of course. There's nothing inherent to the label "people" that allows people to own property or have accounts, nor anything inherent to the label "corporations" the prevents corporations from owning property and having accounts. We could call them "non-person property-holders" or "obbgobblegooks" for all I care, and decide on whatever rules we want.
Isn't it generally quite clear when an owner is purchasing something personal with their own money as opposed to when an owner is authorizing a purchase of something for their corporation with the corporation's money? In theory, what's to prevent us from declaring that corporations are not people, are allowed to have money, property, goods, and debt and are not allowed to spend their money on, among other things, advertising?
This isn't to say that doing so prevents any sort of non-individual spending on advertising. But saying that "corporations have to be people" and "we can't impose any additional control over corporation spending because actually the owners do the spending" seems irrelevant and incorrect.