The context for that supreme court opinion was whether or not citizens are allowed to organise as a corporation in order to excercise free speech. Such as making a film about a politician or printing promotional materials. Some projects are too large and risky to take on as a sole trader.
Incidentally, I don't think they ever ruled that citizens united was a person (that was the Clinton News Network spin), they ruled that the people running it did not lose their first amendment rights simply because they were excercising them through a corporate structure.
Actually according FINRA everything from trusts, insurance companies, and in between is considered a legal "person". The only ones who are not are ones who have no legal authority to make decisions.
(post is archived)