> Corporations have always had personhood. Always? You cite the U.S. Code, which was first published when? 1926. >Donating your money to a non-profit is a for

> Corporations have always had personhood. Always? You cite the U.S. Code, which was first published when? 1926. >Donating your money to a non-profit is a form of speech, no? It's a hell of a lot different when it comes to influencing people during elections. Bad analogy, and an insincere play to the audience here with the EFF. If we allow money to be speech, we allow outsized influence on governance by a few. Corporations have much more money to spend on campaigns which works against the public interest. > Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company The precedent of corporate personhood didn't even come from arguments in the case, it came from an oral remark by the Chief Justice Morrison Waite, who earlier worked as a lawyer for railroads. It was recorded by the court recorder J.C. Bancroft Davis, who earlier was a president of a railroad. The precedent and its house of cards should be thrown out.