Apparently, Thomas Jefferson did not understand the concept of "personhood" in the United States.

[sufrommich]

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our
moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our
government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of
our country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

[dgibby]

1. Probably not, since he was a slave owner. n/t

[FreakinDJ]

2. Based on a Bullshit interpretation of the 14th amendment

Beginning in the 1870's corporate lawyers began asserting that corporations were persons with many of the rights of natural persons. It should be understood that the term "artificial person" was already in long use, with no mistake that corporations were claiming to have the rights of natural persons. "Artificial person" was used because there were certain resemblances, in law, between a natural person and corporations. Both could be parties in a lawsuit; both could be taxed; both could be constrained by law. In fact the corporations had been called artificial persons by courts in England as early as the 16th century because lawyers for the corporations had asserted they could not be convicted under the English laws of the time because the laws were worded "No person shall..."



John A. Bingham the member of Congress who is known to have been chiefly responsible for the phraseology of Section One when it was drafted by the Joint Committee in 1866, had, during the previous decade and as early as 1856-1859, employed not one but all three of the same clauses and concepts he later used in Section One. More important still, Bingham employed these guarantees specifically and in a context which suggested that free Negroes and mulattoes rather than corporations and business enterprise unquestionably were the persons' to which he then referred.

Before the Supreme Court determined that corporations were persons and hence had constitutional rights female citizens had decided that the Fourteenth Amendment should be interpreted to give them the right to vote. In Minor v. Happersett the Supreme Court ruled that "women" were not persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.

http://www.iiipublishing.com/afd/santaclara.html

From Citizens United briefs

Distinguishing wealthy individuals from corporations based on the latter’s special advantages of, e.g., limited liability, does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html

The level of perverse logic governing the interpretation of Constitution is just mind boggling

[LuckyTheDog]

3. Make THIS your Facebook status

"Money is not speech and human beings -- not corporations -- are persons entitled to constitutional rights. If you agree, copy this into your Facebook status and encourage others to do the same."