Leftists myths about corporate personhood

Per a Green Party push-email, it's time to dispel some myths about corporate personhood.

The GP noted today was the anniversary of the Supreme Court's 1886 ruling in what has been celebrated by Frank Norris' "Octopus" and other things, Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific.

Several notes.

First and foremost, the extension of some degree of "corporate personhood" to corporations is exactly that  — some degree. Since then, especially from the 1960s on, in things like advertising, for example, the court has ruled that regulatory restrictions can indeed be placed on corporations that, with individuals, would be clear violations of the First Amendment.

Second, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was only specifically referenced by a court reporter for the case. In other words, it was not cited by any justice. Hence, my "some degree" above.

Third, the Gilded Age was well established by 1886. Santa Clara may have abetted it to some degree, but no more than that.

Fourth, the undercutting of McCain-Feingold was NOT done on corporate personhood grounds. In Citizens United, the majority rather, and QUITE wrongly (and shut up Glenn Greenwald and many others) ruled that "money = speech," to put it bluntly.

Fifth and finally, per the second link above, there's many good things about corporate personhood:

Treating corporations as having legal rights allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association.

In addition, corporations can be criminally charged. 

Related? The Supreme Court has also specifically denied some aspects of personhood apply to corporations:

Generally, corporations are not able to claim constitutional protections that would not otherwise be available to persons acting as a group. For example, the Supreme Court has not recognized a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for a corporation, since the right can be exercised only on an individual basis. In United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company, "[a]ppellants [suggested] the use of the word 'taxpayer' several times in the regulations requires the fifth-amendment self-incrimination warning be given to a corporation." The Court did not agree. Likewise, corporations and organizations do not have privacy rights under the Privacy Act of 1974, since the statute refers to any “individual,” which it defines as “a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”

But, classes of leftists wanting to perpetuate easy legends don't really care.