Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Feingold Slams Supreme Court over "Citizens United," Implies Roberts and Alito Lied Under Oath
Sen. Russ Feingold recently slammed the Supreme Court and strongly implied that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito lied, under oath, to the Senate during their confirmation hearings.
In a speech on Sept. 10, Feingold, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, denounced the “Citizens United” decision that the Court handed down earlier this year.
Feingold called it “a lawless decision.”
That decision allows corporations to give unlimited contributions in favor of, or in opposition to, a candidate so long as those contributions aren’t coordinated with a candidate’s campaign. It treats corporations the same way it treats individuals. (See http://www.progressive.org/mrapril10.html.)
But, said Feingold, “they are not the same as us. They do not have the same rights as all of us. And that decision is wrong on the law, and wrong for America, and an enormous danger for the political process.”
Without naming any names, Feingold said that George W. Bush’s Supreme Court nominees “came before the Judiciary Committee and promised me, under oath, that they would follow precedent, that they would be neutral umpires calling balls and strikes. Well, of course, they did the opposite.”
He was clearly referring to Chief Justice Roberts, who famously said at his confirmation hearing on September 12, 2005: “I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”
And Feingold also appeared to be speaking about Justice Alito, who testified on January 10, 2006, that “courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions.” Alito added: “It's important because it limits the power of the judiciary.”
Said Feingold: “These people who pledged to follow precedent overturned a law signed by Teddy Roosevelt in 1907, proposed and backed by Fighting Bob La Follette. And it’s been the law of the land for 100 years that corporations cannot use their treasuries to directly impact elections.”
Feingold said the stakes are high. “We have got to overturn this decision,” he said. “That means President Obama needs another appointment either in this term or a second term or this democracy will head dramatically in the wrong direction.”
Feingold was speaking to a crowd of about 700 people at the Barrymore Theatre in Madison, Wisconsin, at the kickoff event of FightingBobFest, http://fightingbobfest.org an annual gathering of progressives. A partial transcript of his speech is below. Or you can view it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch
Sen. Russ Feingold’s Speech on the Citizens United Case
Delivered at FightingBobFest on Sept. 10, 2010
… It was in the early 1990s, under some Democrats, where the bright idea was cooked up, “Well, gee, why don’t we let corporations and unions and wealthy individuals give unlimited campaign contributions to the political parties independent of the campaign finance limits that had been put in place in the 1970s?”
This was the beginning of soft money. . . . There was no controlling legal authority to prevent a corporation from giving a million dollars Monday night to the Democrats and a million dollars Tuesday night to the Republicans, and on Wednesday have a vote to pass a lousy trade agreement that sends our jobs overseas. That’s exactly what happened with the unlimited campaign contributions. This was a growing cancer in our system.
That’s why John McCain and I and others succeeded in banning those kinds of contributions. . . . And the right and the corporations were absolutely fit to be tied. They couldn’t believe we’d actually achieved something on a bipartisan basis for the American people.
And they started to plot, and they started to work. And of course a certain guy named George Bush became President by a vote of the Supreme Court. And they got some judicial appointments. People that came before the Judiciary Committee and promised me, under oath, that they would follow precedent, that they would be neutral umpires calling balls and strikes.
Well, of course, they did the opposite. They took every opportunity they could when it came to the campaign finance laws to destroy everything but the ban that McCain and I got into place.
So what did they do? They did the Citizens United case. Now just about everybody I’ve talked to said this is one of the worst decisions in the history of the United States Supreme Court. These people who pledged to promise precedent overturned a law signed by Teddy Roosevelt in 1907, proposed and backed by Fighting Bob La Follette. And it’s been the law of the land for 100 years that corporations cannot use their treasuries to directly impact elections. It’s always been the law for 100 years. In 1947, conservatives weren’t very happy that they weren’t the only ones limited, so they managed to get through a provision in the Taft-Hartley Act that said unions couldn’t do it, either. And so it continued, and it was understood that that was impossible to do in the United States. That’s why they were looking for other ways to do it; that’s why they wanted to use this soft money scam. Court case after court case after court case reaffirmed that these statutes were valid and a foundation of our system of government.
So what did these five justices say? They said, “Actually we went back and checked with the founders of the country. And the founders apparently believed that corporations were exactly the same as us, and that a corporation has every right the same as us, and therefore you cannot restrict their ability to buy an election.”
It’s a lawless decision by our highest court.
But four justices disputed it, led by John Paul Stevens, a 90-year-old justice in his last major decision. He went up to the bench—and they usually just announce their decision—and he made these guys listen to him for 20 minutes as he summarized his brilliant 80-page decision, disputing that the corporations are the same as us.
They are not the same as us. They do not have the same rights as all of us. And that decision is wrong on the law, and wrong for America, and an enormous danger for the political process as we go forward.
It’s the Supreme Court. It’s a court case. How can you get people to understand and feel what this means for them? Well, I’ve been amazed at my town meetings. People who I thought would never want to bring up this subject say, “What in the heck was that decision?” Across the board. Even tea party people think it’s a bad decision.
And all you got to tell people is this is what it means. If you go down the street, and go into, let’s say, a BP gas station and buy $10 of gas, that money can now for the first time in 100 years be immediately placed on television to defend candidates who defend Big Oil, and big insurance companies, and the pharmaceutical industry. That’s what it means.
What do they want? They want us to start picking Democratic toothpaste companies and Republican toothpaste companies? That’s what we’re going to have to do if the law says that corporations can use your money to directly influence elections.
Now we’re trying to do something about this mess. We can only go so far in the Congress because it’s a constitutional decision. But we’re trying to pass something. We’ve got 59 votes. We need one more. It’s called the Disclose Act. It’s pretty weak tea. It doesn’t even deal with the danger of foreign money coming in through this decision. It just says that you should have to disclose who you are. So Exxon can’t say we’re the Family Friendly People. They have to say they’re Exxon.
…I don’t want to kid you. Even if we pass it, it’s only a tiny step.
We need to overturn this decision. We need to overturn this decision.
That means President Obama needs another appointment either in this term
or a second term or this democracy will head dramatically in the wrong
direction. We have got to overturn this decision. And as we strategize
to do whatever we can do, between now and then, to limit the effects of
this decision, I want you to know that I’m committed to this cause
because I think it goes to the very core of our democracy.
--Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin).
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
40 Comments so far
Show AllRoberts and Alito lie? Not to get to this decision, but it was a bonus. Their true destiny lies down the road in turning the US into a corporate police state. Don't know what that decison will be (who saw Citizens United coming?), but they will screw over the common citizen.
More sycophantic re-hash of virtually meaningless and superficial beltway politics. Of course, this is to be expected from an Ivory Tower bourgeois liberal like Matt.
Nice infotainment though, Matt should go into TV, he would be great on MSNBC.
Since November is drawing nearer, it seems CD is shying away from analytical articles that might be critical of the status-quo, institutionally-corrupt Duopoly electoral system in favor of other more light-hearted reading and infotainment that is more acceptable to a mainstream liberal audience. I know, don't want to alienate the big donors. I am so un-pragmatic, sorry.
socialist, please see the virtually identical 5:23 pm comment I just posted to the Elizabeth Warren article in the "News" column!
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/09/17-3
Woa, you are right OS - and within minutes of each other. Not to sound self-aggrandizing, but I completely agree of course ;)
Me, three!
Hello Socialist,
Are you serious? Do you really believe that the question of whether corporations can buy any election without restriction is "meaningless and superficial beltway politics?"
It seems, then, that any political act short of complete socialist revolution is trivial to you, a mere shadow play of the "institutionally-corrupt Duopoly." Which leads me to one more question. How are you going to talk to the progressive community, who care about these corrupt trivialities, to bring them closer to the point of socialist revolution? How does your delicately honed disdain play out on a picket line or demonstration?
Just asking. I look forward to your reply.
I was proud of my response because it refrained from the obvious charge you level, in order to keep lines of communication open of course.
I think that - I think that the question of whether corporations can buy any election without restriction is meaningless and superficial beltway politics. Corporations by everything. The problem is vastly greater than anything that election finance reform could ever address.
You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. It is partisan electoral politics that is the narrow and restrictive option, the option that prevents people from imagining any other options. You ant to portray those rejecting that approach as the ones with a narrow and restrictive focus, those who are trying to restrict the range of options we consider - "any political act short of complete socialist revolution is trivial." That is precisely backward, a gross misrepresentation. You are portraying anything other than partisan electoral politics, anything other than working within the system as trivial and not to be considered. By that trick, you divert attention from the full range of options available to us and steer us back into one very narrow and restrictive option, and one that is certain to fail.
As for how we you going to talk to the progressive community - that tiny little faction of mostly upscale people who dominate the political discussion and who work tirelessly to steer people away from the Left and back into the safe and predictable system - we talk to them just the way I am here. They are not a big enough number to worry about, other than the influence they have on the discussion, and that influence is always reactionary and suppressive.
How does the "delicately honed disdain play out on a picket line or demonstration?" The same way that radical and militant left wing politics always do. Very powerfully. Just watch over the next couple of years and you will see it first hand.
"Corporations by everything."
Don't you think it is important to put limits on what corporations can buy?
"the option that prevents people from imagining any other options."
TA, WHY do you KEEP saying that voting prevents people from imagining any other options?
"You are portraying anything other than partisan electoral politics, anything other than working within the system as trivial and not to be considered."
I do not believe that is what the poster is saying, though that is up to him to testify to. In any case, I do not believe, that "anything other than working within the system" is trivial. Why do you keep insisting that the very act of voting renders all other approaches void? There is no basis for this conclusion ....
Again, if voting is "working within the system", a system you wish to eliminate, is there to be NO voting in your "system", or whatever you wish to call what you want to replace "the system" with?
I am now removing most of the double entry.
I cannot help but think that this diminishing of the separation of the three branches of govt is more than the triviality you claim it to be. Nor is a biased Supreme Court "superficial beltway politics".
I wonder at your standards, though I generally support your positions here.
Whoever flagged this comment should be shot !
As a humorous aside your comment is pointed and funny. As a serious suggestion it is rather disturbing.
While I think that Judge Roberts was being deliberately misleading when he described his judicial philosophy to the Senate Judiciary Committee as that of an "umpire" calling "strikes and balls" as he sees 'em, I wouldn't exactly characterize that as a "lie."
Roberts did LIE outright, however, during his confirmation hearings, when he denied his awareness of the secretive, far-right Federalist Society (he was, in fact, a member of that radical Society's STEERING COMMITTEE).
His lie should have disqualified him from the federal judiciary (and would have, if the "mainstream" media were something other than an echo-chamber for right-wing nonsense). Lying, under oath, to the U.S. Senate is supposed to be a CRIME, if I'm not mistaken.
...and yes, Alito is a radical judicial activist, too, equally unconcerned with laws and precedents that don't serve his agenda, but I didn't catch him lying during his confirmation hearings (which, radical as he appeared, ended in his confirmation after the media turned his wife's blubbing into a "story" intended to shame the "mean ole'" Democrats for upsetting the wife of an unambiguous enemy of the Constitution, civil rights, and social justice).
I'm waiting for the first congress person to call for impeachment.
We might start with Roberts. He has been on the side of the large vs.the small, the corporate vs. the workers, the wealthy over the poor in every single position he has taken as Chief Justice.
Wealthy and poor? When you value the people's rights to equality in the ownership of production, then those terms become thieves and non-thieves. We could recognize BOTH the rights and the honesty of the people. It could be embraced as another right for the people to pursue, and cage, the thieves.
James O'Donnell (no relation to Christine, I hope ;), you're right -- and I believe Alito and Scalia have also been connected to the Federalist Society, as well as The C Street Family.
Of course, Scalia and Clarence Thomas should have been removed from the Court for not recusing themselves from the Bush v. Gore decision -- they both had close relatives working for the Bush campaign at the time. (Scalia's sons and Thomas' wife.)
But I guess conflict of interest has become as 'quaint' a notion as the Fourth and Fifth amendments to the Constitution guaranteeing security against warrantless seizures of property and due process of law, not to mention Habeas Corpus.
James ODonnell: excellent comment! Even a public school student could tell you our system of government cannot work if the Supreme Court is corrupted by political agenda. Corporate cheerleader Supreme Court justices are just another nail in the coffin known as capitalist America.
Senator Feingold has no choice but to work within the system. I, myself, am delighted that we have a senator of this quality. Were he simply a blogger, he may very well fit in with this crowd – but he’s not.
The way I see it, Senator Feingold’s stronger-than-code words may put more fear into the hearts of the opposition than the outspoken rantings of all of us combined. I remember that the enemy was terrified of the popularity of Senator Feingold’s good friend, Senator Wellstone of Minnesota.
I am as cynical as the best of you (my friends in college called me ‘HL’, because I would quote H.L. Mencken – (OK, I'm from the age of pre-enlightenment).
How’s this: “The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.”
-- H L Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy (1949)
Still this hard-core cynic believes that should Senator Feingold become President (unlikely), something good would get done. I see him as a man of principle.
An individual senator he has very little power; however, a majority of quality senators (impossible), would make a significant difference.
Senator Feingold's epiphany with Citizens United is a little late in coming (and, with the confirmation of Kagan, perhaps a dollar short). Not all that long ago (for old farts like me), the Senator believed (and espoused) that the appointment process belonged to the president, and that the president should get who and what he wants except under extreme circumstances (which I don't recall ever arising). To many observers, Feingold considered the Senate's advise and consent role as a rubber-stamp process.
A look at the current make-up of the Supreme Court, and of the federal judiciary in general (the recent abomination out of the Ninth Circuit on Jeppesen Dataplan ought to give the good Senator, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, something to think about) might suggest a slightly more rigorous approach to the confirmation process for judicial nominees: that they should be shaken until their teeth rattle...that the Senate should know precisely who and what they are confirming to such positions of power. The president should not own the judicial nominating process.
Senator Feingold stands high among the rest of the Senate, and we'd be better off if there were many more like him...but that doesn't mean that he's right, or has been, across the board.
(And if as an individual senator he has very little power, please explain the enormous sway of the likes of Lindsey Graham and Kit Bond.)
If Feingold even ran for POTUS, he'd probably get Wellstoned too.
Therein lies the rub.
Progressives need a 100 year plan (conspiracy) like the white... I mean right wing from Wall St. (and Europe) has, only the opposite. Theirs was to destroy real democracy and solidify (multinational) corporate power over that of the state - in fact driving the state like a stolen car. It'd be nice to see some kind of militant leftist conspiracy with exactly the opposite plan in mind. Oh yea, that was supposed to be what Stalin and Mao were all about. Personally I think Marx has been about as honestly represented by the USSR and PRC as Christ has been represented by Catholics and Baptists/Pentecostals. I think that Fidel came closest, although he was forced (by an indisputably real enemy, with very overt hostility and consistent sabotage) to put 'national security' as the highest priority, for decades. But to give it to him, he's been a thorn in the Corporate West's shoes for longer than anyone. I'll miss him when he's gone, even if I accept that he's survived by being something other than a 'nice guy'.
"So what did these five justices say? They said, “Actually we went back and checked with the founders of the country. And the founders apparently believed that corporations were exactly the same as us, and that a corporation has every right the same as us, and therefore you cannot restrict their ability to buy an election."
I would like to know where they found this alleged belief of the founders when the United States Constitution doesn't mention "corporations" as having any rights. And in fact, corporations were given "charters" to operate in this country and not the rights of natural born citizens.
Marbury vs. Madison: (from Encarta)
“It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
Citizens United.
Possibly the worst decision since Dred Scott.
Seems to me there's something in the US Constitution regarding impeachment...
Liberty & Justice,
sj
Well, folks, did anyone else pick up on the fact that Feingold's "conclusion" was that it was imperative that Obama be retained in office, for "the sake of SC nominations". To whit:
"President Obama needs another appointment either in this term or a second term or this democracy will head dramatically in the wrong direction."
And just how does one propose to "guarantee" him another opportunity for an appointment? And, if one of the so-called "liberals" retires, wouldn't he just replace them with the likes of Sotomayor (sp?) or Kagan - hardly encouraging, IMO. Giving O another shot at the SC is hardly my idea of preserving democracy.
And for all his protestations about Alito's and Robert's misleading his committee, what did he expect from Bush appointees? "They promised us!" Oh, give me a break!
And, if you will notice, he counterposed their promise to respect precedent with their ignoring of a "100 year old law". Yoo - hoo, Russ, the "precedent" they did, indeed, respect was "Santa Clara County", making corps persons. (I know, it was in a clerk inserted headnote, not in the "decision", but it has been treated as precedent). The "law of the land" they promised to uphold was the Const. - not everything that comes out of Congress; indeed, they are throwing out stuff that comes out of Congress all the time as not being consistent with "the law of the land".
Russ, you could have, and should have voted "NO" on these guys. Don't try to weasel out of a bad decision now.
"We have got to overturn this decision. And as we strategize to do whatever we can do, between now and then, to limit the effects of this decision, I want you to know that I’m committed to this cause because I think it goes to the very core of our democracy."
No "law" you could pass will do it - the SC will just strike it down - you know that. So why aren't you backing a Const. Amendment that would make a clear distinction between flesh and blood human beings and artificial entities for purposes of ensuring only the former are guaranteed Const. rights? That is the only sure way, if there is such a thing, to get there. It takes a while, so why aren't you fighting tooth and nail for such a thing?
Sorry, Russ, but for a smart guy, this is a pretty dumb article, and as for you, Mr. R., why aren't you pointing this stuff out as well? Oh, never mind, i know the answer to that .....
I have written Feingold about this 100 year old law business and he still pretends that this whole problem arose with the Republicrat DLC in the early 90's which is nonsense aimed at people who are ignorant of the history of this country. Check the huge amounts of money which entered the political arena in 1980 and helped elect the likes of Tom Delay - who campaigned on a promise of repealing all pesticide regulation. After all, everybody knows ALL regulation exists to hurt the "little people" and not the corporations marketing those tasty poisons to our pathological corporate agriculture system that is hell-bent on making farm families obsolete.
Yes, Santa Clara County WAS the source for this ruling and the supreme court merely acted in the corrupt fashion that has been drilled into law students since corporations became "persons" with all the rights thereof. Even as Feingold's dissembling sinks into mendacity to support the implied assertion that the McCain-Feingold fig-leaf would solve the problem, it is plain that far more powerful action will be necessary to deal with this 14th amendment abomination. And believe me, our corporate Obamination will fight it just like the Republicrats that live and breathe their daily fix of graft.
Until actual progressive politicians actually produce a clarification of the bastardized 14th amendment then we are going to hear more nonsense like Feingold's spewed by politicians who are merely the "better" ones of a thoroughly and evenly obscenely disgusting lot. Notice that NOTHING came from the racist core of the Republicrat party after the brief flatulence about how they would rewrite the 14th amendment to help Arizona "deal" with Arizona "immigration problem". Obviously, everybody knew that rewriting that amendment would allow the PUBLIC to discuss and educate their peers about corporate personhood and the way it flushed the republic down the down the corruption toilet. Don't worry about the politicians biting the hand that feeds them.
Even in the discussions of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, the chief justice at that time said at the beginning, that the 14th amendment was "not at issue here" which was deliberately mis-reported as meaning that the decision was based on the 14th amendment. Read "Age of Betrayal" by Jack Beatty - won Chicago Tribune's best non-fiction book of its year. Of course it didn't matter that the court reporter (a former railroad owner) would use a sacrosanct amendment to the constitution could to give windfall power to the railroads. No, it didn't matter according to operators within today's District of Corruption. It only matters to EVERYBODY ELSE.
Yes. Feingold's "conclusion" was that it was imperative that Obama be retained in office, for "the sake of SC nominations." The huckstering for the Democratic party has become shameless and transparent. They have driven me to vote third party (although as you know I don't think it is all that important how each of us votes.)
"They have driven me to vote third party"
Yo! TA! that's all I ask ....
The US Supreme Court has gone a long way to make sure the political system doesn't have even the slightest bit of a level playing field as Jesse Jackson Sr is often talking about. We must stop this threat to democracy before it's too late.
AD
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
Good development on Feingold's part, but half a year too late and too little. The Democratic Party is as dead and clinging to fading memories of better aspects of its past as American culture.
Roberts and Alito did not technically lie.
They broke their promises.
It was a rousing speech, but it boils down to this pitch, as Feingold says: "That means President Obama needs another appointment either in this term or a second term or this democracy will head dramatically in the wrong direction."
Now, wait a minute. We've seen little protection against vested corporate interests from the Obama administration. Obama hired corporate execs from Goldman Sachs to oversee the Treasury and decide what to do with all of that TARP money. Goldman Sachs, BP and other nefarious corporations contributed to the Obama campaign. Obama the public champion? I think not.
And Feingold just argued that Congress had little power (not true) and just took a tiny step to right the Supreme Court's wrong decision. But Congress writes the laws - the President doesn't. This pitch doesn't even make sense. Can the President overturn a Supreme Court ruling? No, he can't.
Of course, it was no big deal (for them) when Dem Congresspersons voted for Roberts and Alito, even when they were spewing all of that Federalist Society crap about "the unitary executive." While George Bush embraced the unitary executive (read "king") theory of the Presidency, there is no reason for Obama to do the same. But he has. Obama's maintained the Bush-era assassination policy, suspension of habeas corpus, torture by proxy ("extraordinary rendition"), secrecy in government, domestic spying, three-front wars, and much more - all tied to the theory that he's a king during wartime and can do whatever he wants.
And that's our champion against a right-wing Supreme Court? Please.
I know people think of Feingold as some sort of progressive, but the conclusion of this speech is just nonsense. Feingold is still part of the Democratic Party apparatus, which does not represent progresssives at all
-TIA
I don't believe you need a constitutional amendment. Just past a law defining corporation in such a way as to preclude them as equal to persons.
"Any corporation claiming person hood or exercises itself as a person, immediately ends as a legals corporation and dissolves as a legal corporation."
But, Mr. Feingold, you know that the ruling elite who own this country are liars and have no interest in being honest, fair, or lawful.
They don't want equality, only dominance of their leadership.
They feel they own the country as their private business interests. Therefore, they can make any rules which promote their own control.
The people are nothing but serfs and subjects.
I think the fact that we have Citizen's United is proof that it's too late. Short of an all out revolution, which we know will never happen in America (unless it's a fascist revolution), that we need radical change now. Instead we have a few quality progressive laws slowly passing, and a bunch of worthless laws like supposed health care reform being passed in larger numbers. Meanwhile there's no massive organized strikes, protest, or uprising. Everyone is worried, but their waiting for the government to do something instead of squating in empty apartments and homes in numbers so massive the police are helpless (it worked in the 30s so it couldn't possibly work now). There is a point where there is no hope left, and I think we've reached it. Any solution that would work would be far more radical than anything we're used to, and the time in which such solutions could work is quickly running out.
As a person, I am trying to figure out corporate persons, and I suppose I have some peculiar and maybe silly sounding questions, but I really think they should be addressed.
I am still confused as to how a corporation can be a person too. When Ken Ley of Enron died,he would seemed to have been the corporation "person." But when he died, the lawsuits seemed to also , so why didn't Enron literally die too? It would seem to reconstruct itself like Frankenstein. How can the Supreme Court make a "person" out of dead parts?
Dred Scott was really a person, so how could the Court have made him property? This was obviously a mistake and it was corected, and so should this Court correct this mistake. I really don't think that the Founding Fathers meant to make corporations into people, and people into things, which seems to be what this Court has done.
It also seems that corporations have so many shell companies to escape any legal entanglements, but human beings don't. If they have ailases, they are prejudged to be guilty of something, so why are corporations not deemed guilty in the same way with all of their different AKAs?
Is the CEO considered the "person" and then what are the boards of directors considered to be...dependents? Can a clan be a person?
Real people work for a corporation, so are they working for a real person too, or just OZ behind the curtain?
If a corporation dies, where is it buried? Is there a funeral or does the corporation just pass out dirivatives? Who inherits if a corporation dies?
If the stockholders own the corporation, and a corporation is a person, isn't this slavery?
If a corporation comes from overseas, does it need to be naturalized before it can become a U.S. citizen and vote?
If I give $5 to a candidate, why do I have to sign and prove that it is my money? Why all this bother if corporations don't have to? Do all the srockholders have to agree and the board of directors too, and become one mind as in one person. Does "meeting of the minds" not have to happen? Why does it need to happen for individual people?
Do the supreme Court robes have hoods, because if not, they really should update them, as they are looking more and more like the black robed Dementers from Harry Potter. They just fly in and suck the life out of everything.
For those of you who are long out of HS/College and have forgotten some of the landmark cases, corporate personhood began with Santa Clara Country vs Southern Pacific Railroad (1886). That precedent is what screws us all.