Comments:California county's corporate anti-electioneering measure abandoned

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Corporations AREN'T people. If they were people, they'd be kept in padded rooms, or executed in Texas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation

Quite! I hadn't heard of that film: its premise seems solid, and it sounds like painful viewing.

The concept of the corporation is unlikely to have occurred to the framers of the amendments, as there were so few corporations at the time (apart from municipal councils.) However, the county thought there was a reasonable chance of losing, so I guess there must be case law that gives corporations 'equal protection under the law', or even the right to free speech, bizarre as it sounds. Anyone know what that case law is?

--InfantGorilla (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You'd be wanting w:Corporate personhood debate. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)