This is the case which is cited as having granted corporations the same rights as individuals. This is the basis of the argument that corporations must have their "free speech" unimpaired.

If corporations were required to "die" or could be sentenced to "death" (and they used to be - when their charters were revoked for corporate malfeasance - but not anymore) then they should enjoy the same rights as individuals,

Otherwise, it is not logical to grant them such rights.

from the Wikipedia article: (click link on my name for full text)

A Passing Remark

The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports.

Preceding every case entry is what's known as a headnote, a short summary where a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments.

For example, in U.S. v. Detroit Timber and Lumber (1905), headnotes are defined as "not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession."

The court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

In other words, corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons. However, this issue is absent from the court's opinion itself.

Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:

Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific as follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.

Waite replied:

I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.

C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison C. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes "In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports...had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases."

...when you don't know they're on a cellphone in the stall next to you, and they ask a question, and you answer it, and they say "I'm on the phone".

is technically treason, maybe someone's lawyer got on the phone to NewsCrax?

Forget health care, let's pass Universal Hair Care. This is an issue that I believe all Americans can agree on.

There is nothing worse than some pompadoured politician spouting off on TV with a badly executed 'do. Exhibit A: Rod Blagojevich.

The same goes for the bailout bankers; have you seen Jamie Dimon's hair? And what exactly is up with Donald Trump's toupees?

For every single cosmetolgistically challenged celebrity, there must be a hundred common men and women yearning for effective styling.

Universal Hair Care is more then a right of man, it is a way to improve our country equally across all boundaries: rich and poor, ugly and cute, famous and obscure.

Once Congress addresses this pressing issue, we can tackle the next great challenge facing our country today: Universal Tattoo Removal...

and it wasn't even a slow news week...

I'm going through all of the episodes via Netflix - just finished Season Two - it was quite funny. Waiting to see if this goes downhill too...

the funny part was, we saw it in a mall cinema much like the one in the movie.

after the film was over, most of the people who had seen it (ourselves included) moaned and staggered around the mall on the way back to their automobiles...

Night Of The Living Dead is still pretty damn scary today - that's saying something for a 40+ year old movie.

I used alcohol and marijuana for decades. I could not quit one without quitting another. Marijuana devastated my willpower and self-control.

If I had not stopped drinking I would be dead now. If I had not stopped smoking pot, I would not have stopped drinking...

If they want to legalize it, fine. I really don't care. But, for an addict, pot can kill you.

If I started smoking pot again, my willpower would go out the window, and I'd start drinking again.

Plus, unless you eat or vaporize it, pot is not good for your lungs. Bob Marley died of... lung cancer.

I hoped that Charley would make an appearance! Thanks, Ruben!

so for all of the armchair critics who think you are so damn smart, perhaps you should take a stab at authorship instead of authors.

polite criticism is one thing, but nothing merits the kind of crass nastiness directed at Mr. Smith in the comments here...

i'm sure that George Bush's operators are also standing by...

the awarding of this prize to Obama is meant to emphasize the rest of the world's hatred for the US under the Bush administration.

while this message is totally lost on the Cro-Magnon red state rednecks who celebrate ignorance in every realm of American life, the Nobel committee should be reassured that the rest of us hear them loud and clear...