I found this opinion piece by Harold Meyerson to be spot on concerning corporations being brought in to the world of personhood.
Is it alright for corporations to speak for their employees on all matters as a collective? I don't think so.
Also consider this: Where does this corporations-are-people business start and stop? Note the excerpt from Meyerson's piece:Harold Meyerson makes one think about personhood, don't you think? What about wars? People are drafted and go to wars, why not include corporations? Corporations get to itemize a lot of things on their taxes more than the average Joe or Jane. Why do they get to be a special person with extraordinary fiscal relationships with the state?Under the law, corporations and humans have long had different standards of responsibility. If corporations are treated as people, so that they are free to spend money in election campaigns and to invoke their religious beliefs to deny a kind of health coverage to their workers, are they to be treated as people in other regards? Corporations are legal entities whose owners are not personally liable for the companyís debts, whereas actual people are liable for their own. Both people and corporations can discharge their debts through bankruptcy, but there are several kinds of bankruptcy, and the conditions placed on people are generally far more onerous than those placed on corporations. If corporations are people, why arenít they subject to the same bankruptcy laws that people are? Why arenít the owners liable for corporate debts as people are for their own?
If corporations are going to be given the freedoms that people enjoy, they should be subjected to peopleís obligations and restrictions too. Iím not sure how many corporations would think thatís such a good deal.
Yes, I think Scalia is looking to see how he is going to open this can of worms -- real carefully.