CU vs FEC did not rely on the concept of corporate personhood. If anything, if this concept didn't exist it would be even stronger, because then there would be absolutely no legal reason to treat a group of people differently just because they're acting together. What would be the argument - you can do it individually, but once you gather in one building and have a banner at the entrance and a receptionist, you all suddenly lose your free speech rights?
No, you (the individual) do not lose any of your rights. However, the manifestation of a corporate entity should not generate a new right-bearing entity.
I get only one vote - making Me, Inc. should not provide me a path to be represented twice - as though to cast a second vote.
Money is not speech. This is tge court's error. Treating a thing as though it's a different thing or concept than what it is breaks everything and is quite literally insane. Else, with my free speech, I ought to just act as a mint. Either my self-generated fiat is now legal tender or actual, government-minted legal tender is already spoken for and means something precise, distinct from the transaction where it purportedly speaks.
A group of people can speak and transact - the solution to this dilemma is recognizing that a corporation is still full of individuals with unhindered rights, but no trickery allows those individual rights to be replicated - only represented.
> However, the manifestation of a corporate entity should not generate a new right-bearing entity.
Of course it should, that's the whole purpose of the corporation. That's the premise whole western financial system is built on - that the corporations are right-bearing entities. That doesn't mean they are people - it means that in the western legal system, certain rights can attach to entities other than people. That's no surprise to anybody who would look into how corporations work and why they were invented in the first place.
> as though to cast a second vote
Voting rights have never been part of corporate personhood, what are you talking about?
> Money is not speech
Money by itself is a resource. This resource can be spent on speech - I can pay money to facilitate my speech. If you prevent me from doing that, you essentially shutting down my speech - what is the use of it if nobody can hear or read it, because publishing costs money, and I am prohibited from that? In a separation of labor society - which by now is every society - money is a necessary prerequisite to use the services of society. And no (significant) societal activity can be performed without involving money, one way or another. Thus, money are not speech, literally, but money are a necessary gateway to speech.
> This is tge court's error.
No, that's your error by trying to misrepresent the court's decision in a way that is convenient to you for criticizing it. The court did not say "corporations are people" or "money is speech" - they said something that the opposing side activists turned into such slogans, but if you want to understand and not just scream out your rage, then you need to go to the actual meaning, beyond the slogans.
