gop: Corporations are people, too. Money is speech. Citizens United.
Also gop: Our poors are better than yours.
Let's see how this plays out:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news...on-deal-with-foxconn
https://www.theguardian.com/te...tory-10bn-build-jobs
Naio, you're quoting left wing blogs and forums. Not the SCOTUS decision. Corporations as people had nothing to do with it. Corporations as entities (persons) date from the 1700s, at least, in English law. Dutch, to a degree, as well. That allowed a limited risk investment and allowed corporate officers to sign contracts. Citizens United decision was for the investors, not a corporation as a person. In short, the government had limited free speech of investors because they invested in a corporation. That was overturned by the majority decision by SCOTUS.
"The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
"The majority ruled that the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have free speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
I despair that the Democrats posting here will even attempt to understand the above. The left appears to suffer from invulnerable ignorance -- an inability to learn, if such disagrees with their beliefs. As I've said in other ways, that's the way of a primitive mind.