This has been on my mind for awhile, and couldn't figure out what to do with this, until I thought about signing up and posting it here.
Citizens United basically states that money now equals speech. Because of that, the question that most people have been asking is "Are corporations really people?", but shouldn't the question we should be asking is, "Are people corporations? And if so, what does that truly mean?"
Since the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people, we, as living, breathing human beings, are tied to them. And under the Equal Protection Clause, this should have huge ramifications.
Simply put, shouldn't we challenge Citizens United under the grounds that corporations are taxed differently than living, breathing citizens? And as such are afforded more speech than average citizens?
If money equates to speech, tax breaks, being taxed on profit rather than revenue ( personal income), and a myriad of other corporate tax incentives, are unjustly giving corporations unequal power when compared to how citizens are taxed. And since corporations are people, under the Equal Protection Clause, isn't that unconstitutional? Think about how much money you could save if you were taxed as a corporation (taxed only on the amount of profit/savings you made each year). And think about how much more money you could contribute to the political system if you had all of that extra disposable income. Under the Equal Protection Clause, if money truly equals speech, isn't different taxation depriving you of our speech? Isn't it giving corporations a significantly biased/undue amount of speech/influence in our elections.
So my question is, shouldn't someone challenge Citizens United by filing their taxes as a corporation does, saving a huge amount of money, and when the IRS challenges it, sue based on the fact that the current tax law is unconstitutional and depriving them of their first amendment rights?