There was no 19th Century ruling, the "precedent" giving corporations 14th Amendment "equal protection" was a headnote written by a Marxist court clerk in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad. She is on absolutely solid legal grounds here.
That is the way I understood it, “corporations” were legal people based on a clerk’s insertion.
That said, the idea that an Entity has no inherent right to expose it’s views is unsustainable, be that Entity “Joe” who flips burgers or Exxon, who deals in energy the idea of curtailing speech is heinous to the Constitution’s mandate of a free market place of ideas.
Indeed, and your link to the 14th Amendment is dead-on. The issue she's actually addressing is the corporate shield of non-responsibility, which has zero support in the original (pre-14th) Constitution.
It's breathtaking that she should even acknowledge the existence of this elephant of all elephants that is not only in the living room, but that has crushed the entire house beneath it. Unfortunately, liberals are utterly dependent upon their corporate shields - without it they would be destroyed. So I don't see this going anywhere. Nevertheless, it's a way big surprise from her.
(On the other hand, she could have simply screwed up by musing out loud, trying to find a way to protect McCain-Feingold.)
I agree. This is a very nice surprise.
The idea that any entity besides individual people has rights has no basis in objective reality.
It is a legal fiction, based on a cluster of metaphors that are not appropriate for Equal Protection consideration.
Expect the Wall St. Money Power to go berserk and throw a fit over this.
Very good article. Thanks for posting that link.