Ooooh, can you explain their stance on NAMBLA as well?No, but it means you chose to transfer the decision-making power over that money to dolphin-killers. Some might say that's the same thing. But you can't voluntarily give someone else control over your money, then claim they have no right to control that money.
If you don't want your money spent a particular way, then don't give it to someone who may spend it that way. Duh!
As far as a corporate personhood, this has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. There is a reason the ACLU advocated the position they did (pro-free speech). If you don't understand that position, I would recommend researching it until you do (understand it, not necessarily agree with it).
@WhoWee: Sure we can, just as we can the converse.
edit: You can quit a union, but you end poor. You can sell your shars, but you may end poor. More importantly, a union is meant to represent their workers, a corporation is meant to make a proft... period... end of story. The shareholders own a part of that profit, and the company itself.