A Basic Refute of Corporate Personhood

James Bopp Jr. was the attorney who worked as a legal adviser on Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. He invoked the same perverted twist on “free speech” as McCutcheon did but with a corporate personhood flavor:

"The Supreme Court has ruled that corporate political speech is protected by the First Amendment, and you cannot ban political speech just because the speaker is a corporation," said Bopp.

It is important to break down the meaning of this haunting quote. One fallacious equivalency is to put a faceless corporate multinational business entity (legally programmed as robots produce profits at all costs) on the same playing field as a flesh-and-blood human being. The second fallacious equivalency is to call money speech of which a logical consequence is the more money someone has the more speech that person has a right to. When these two fallacious equivalencies become married their child is the dangerously wrongheaded Frankenstein monster that the Citizens United Ruling set the spark of life to.

Given what James Bopp said, don’t we the people have the right and ability to pool resources together to advocate for views?

Yes that is legitimate free speech but corporate money is not the same as the people’s money pooled together. Government gives corporations special advantages to make them effective in the economic sphere, not the status of “disadvantaged persons” entitled to a “voice” for the political sphere.

Corporations have only privileges under the law not individual rights.