This is a misleading argument. If I operate as a sole trader, I am the legal person responsible. If I am the sole shareholder of a corporation, I and the company are distinct legal entities. An unincorporated association is the individuals it is composed of and has very little recognition in law. An incorporated association? Legally distinct and visible to a court.
The objection is that "it's too hard to define legally". Nonsense. Courts distinguish between natural and artificial legal personality all the time. Corporations are a legislative creature. People aren't.
> If I am the sole shareholder of a corporation, I and the company are distinct legal entities.
Perhaps, but probably not. The ease of corporate veil piercing is inversely proportional to the number of involved parties.
> An incorporated association? Legally distinct and visible to a court.
which means that it is easier to sue as an entity.
> The objection is that "it's too hard to define legally". Nonsense.
I never made that argument. Stop with the strawmanning. I said that there is no way to limit the ability of companies to petition the government without simultaneously limiting the ability of individuals to do so as well. The previous regulations we had were easily bypassed.
The objection is that "it's too hard to define legally". Nonsense. Courts distinguish between natural and artificial legal personality all the time. Corporations are a legislative creature. People aren't.