In an ideal democracy, sensible theory would posit the absurdity of the body politic's intangible "symbol of value" (money) being sanctioned suffrage to pursue a state of consciousness - as in the pursuit of happiness. Earning a return on capital is the implicit mission of any corporation, yet corporate money is often compared to a union of people dedicating their dues when arguing the absurdity of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.
This granting an inanimate symbol of value the right to vote is the suggested implication in commercialized marketing of political campaigns, also. Scaring voter behavior with plainly false hot button issues like $14 trillion "deficit" - the word is "debt," deficits are annual and they compound into debt and much of the $700 billion loan it took this year to correct a decade of living in fantasyland has already been, or will be, paid back. Nonetheless, marketing campaigns have made the absurdity of granting voting rights to the inanimate seem reasonable.
Anyway, business earns capital through efficient delivery of products. Consider the waste of energy in the efforts of people - and waste of time, goods, and material - involved in Alaska's ongoing U.S. Senate race, thanks to living this fallacy. It's a mockery of common sense.
Does this Supreme Court decision honestly seem just and fair? I think maybe it's time to talk impeachment of the Court's majority.
John S. Sonin