To expand: SCOTUS has consistently ruled that corporations have some of the rights of a natural person _because_ "corporations are merely associations of indivi

To expand: SCOTUS has consistently ruled that corporations have some of the rights of a natural person _because_ "corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose" [0]. If I get together with like-minded individuals in order to do something we each have the right to do individually, in most cases, we retain the right to do it as a group (key word "most" -- as you say, which specific rights corporations should have is far from easy to sort out.) In particular, free speech is a right of "every ... association representing a segment of American life and taking an active part in our political campaigns and discussions" [1] -- unions, guilds, consumer groups, religious groups, newspapers, political parties, and so forth. Those groups are made up of individuals united for a purpose, and their choosing to unite should not penalize them by restricting their ability to speak. Justice Kennedy made a great comment to this effect: "wealthy individuals and unincorporated associations can spend unlimited amounts .... Yet [under the Austin decision] certain disfavored associations of citizens — those that have taken on the corporate form — are penalized for engaging in the same political speech .... When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful." [2] [0] Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 1886. Yes, that's eighteen eighty six. [1] US vs UAW, 1957 [2] Citizens United v FEC, 2010 - page 40 of Justice Kennedy's majority opinion