I didn't ask why we found it politically expedient to do this or that, I asked why the original poster thought rights for corporations was a fundamentally good

I didn't ask why we found it politically expedient to do this or that, I asked why the original poster thought rights for corporations was a fundamentally good idea. "Because they balance various risks" (as I read your post) may be an accurate description of the world, but isn't an answer for why we don't change it. Most everyone would agree Sturgeon was right, and doubly so about code - and the legal system is a huge pile of politically motivated spaghetti code written over centuries by people who didn't try to get a big picture. We need to decide what parts of our laws capture and define our image of ourselves and what parts are garbage. So rather than create rights for money to prevent DEA seizures or enacting rights for corporations, recognize instead the point of a limited government. Everything that is not expressly forbidden is allowed. We can't fix our current government into that with more laws.