Local Opinion Question Number One states that "only human beings, not corporations, are endowed with constitutional rights; and money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech."
In the voter information packet, Thomas Huckin, arguing against the Salt Lake City ballot measure, writes that "since the Constitution does not distinguish between these two kinds of 'person,' all of the rights accorded to natural persons in the Constitution should be extended to artificial persons, i.e. corporations, as well."
Does this mean the Constitution should grant rights to fictional persons, since they are not distinguished from nonfictional persons?
Perhaps Superman should remember to read Lex Luthor his Miranda rights.
Salt Lake City