Populist Reform of the Democratic Party

Not so, as I made clear. Existing student loans were taken out by unincorporated natural persons. Once a deal is made, the borrower can't unilaterally change the terms to the lender's detriment -- and a change that deprived the lender of any recourse against the individual would certainly be detrimental. Incidentally, the rule against unilaterally changing a contract also applies to corporations. The law gives them no special consideration in this regard.

Future student loans? You're right that a state could allow an individual to incorporate. You could set up a corporation now, using one of the existing forms, or a state might amend its law to create a new type of entity tailored to people who want some new sort of personal corporation. Once you have your corporation, if you set the deal up from the beginning so that the lender's only recourse is against the corporation, one that presumably has no assets, then you can refuse to repay the loan and not be on the hook personally. If you find a lender offering such a loan, go for it. I think they're in the phone book under "Easter Bunny Banking and Trust, N.A." (By the way, even with real corporations, such as those that run small businesses and aren't set up solely to get a loan, it's not at all uncommon for a lender to require individual officers to co-sign the loan so that they'll be personally liable if the corporation goes bankrupt. Lenders have this strange habit of wanting good reason to believe they'll be repaid.)



I'm still not following you. Is the idea that a whole bunch of people will set up corporations, and then all the corporations will join in a class action bankruptcy filing? I don't think existing class action rules would allow that, but assume they did -- what's the advantage? You still have the issue that the conclusion of a corporate bankruptcy discharges the corporation's debts but not those of any natural persons who are also liable on the debts.



I assume you're referring to Kelo. That case doesn't hold that a corporation has some strange power, unavailable to natural persons, to confiscate someone else's property. The power of eminent domain can be exercised only by the government. Kelo upheld the action of the City of New London in exercising that power on behalf of a private entity. The Court's reasoning would apply whether the beneficiary was a corporation or an individual.



An amendment targeted at campaign spending would indeed take many years. An amendment targeted at corporate personhood would take many more years because its ramifications would be so much wider and it would therefore spark so much more opposition. The best hope for reform is a change in the composition of the Supreme Court, resulting in a new decision overruling both Citizens United and McCutcheon.



No, I dismissed it because of a specific legal analysis (other effects of the revocation of corporate personhood) that I stated and that you ignore. If you don't feel like responding to what I wrote, fine, but you have no basis for stating that my argument is pretextual and that the real reason for my position is that I'm taking orders from "the existing powers".