It would mean corps. don't have the same rights as individuals. So, e.g., they could not sue in courts. So, e.g., if there were a breach of contract between two corps., instead of one corp. suing another, all of the shareholders of one would have to sue all of the shareholders of the other – or something like that - which would be completely impracticable.
The fact is, "personhood" includes a whole lot of stuff, and we need some of it to change w.r.t. corps. – e.g., it needs to be easier to "pierce the corporate veil" that protects senior execs from personal liability for the wrongful conduct of their corps. – while some of it perhaps should not change. The law of corporations has evolved over a long period; my guess is that what happened is that somewhere along the line, it used to be pretty reasonable, but that in recent decades, it evolved so as to excessively privilege those with actual control over the corps. (meaning mostly the sr. execs., rather than small shareholders).
I think we need to consider each rule relating to the personhood of corps. individually and from a systemic point of view.
= new reply since forum marked as read
