That doesn’t fully answer the question.
List ALL the rights you think groups don’t have that individuals do (you can skip the obvious, like the right to vote.)
If you don’t want to list them all, tell me these three key ones: Do they have property rights, procedural rights in court, the right to speech?
Could you define your terms?
Do property rights include the exemption from limited liability? Because that’s not the case with all groups in the US.
Procedural rights are different in criminal and civil proceedings.
As for free speech, the US is absolutely unique in the regard that the right to free speech is assumed to be a collective rather than common right (somehow I doubt the fears of the author of the article will be realised in regards to the dismantling of unions being halted due to court cases based on collective bargaining).
As it stands, yes, the precedent is that groups do have free speech laws. Without such precedent the US would be no worse off than any other industrial nations.
Of course not. Exemption from liability is not a right at all.
Property rights means the right to own property, and defend it in court.
Answer the question. Do groups have the right to a lawyer, a speedy trial, etc?
Yes or no?
So you think political parties should have no speech rights. Is that it? Yes or no?
Under which circumstances? In criminal and civil proceedings, there is a long history of such a right. However, such proceedings do not encompass the whole of the law: a group may be subject to judicial arbitration or mediation without the presence of a lawyer.
I think the right to free speech is an individual right rather than a collective right and such a right is not limited if the federal government limits where one can advertise.
Do you support that?
So the answer that you believe that the government should have the power to censor any and all speech by political parties or interest groups like the NAACP or AARP or the ACLU.
Wow.
Sure. Do you support mandatory jail time for manslaughter?
Believe what you will.
So you’re saying you support the rights of groups.
I’m not playing games with you. Unless you say otherwise, that conclusion is very clear. You believe that the government should have the power to censor any and all speech by political parties or interest groups like the NAACP or AARP or the ACLU.
Based on precedent, rather than legislation.
I don’t think a neutral arbiter would agree.
So you would support legislation to overturn the precedent.
Just come out and say it. This is not about your respect for precedent, it’s about what you believe. Why can’t you just admit what you believe?
I think he would. There is simply no other logical conclusion.
But hey, here’s your chance to say “no, I don’t believe that the government should have the power to censor any and all speech by political parties or interest groups like the NAACP or AARP or the ACLU.”
So go ahead. Say it.
I’d support legislation to censor you 
That’s a point in my favor.
Yes but you lost 2 points for being smug about it.
I think it’s more convenient in some instances to bring suits against corporations when corporate decisions have been criminal, but I don’t see the harm of “ministerial responsibility” when corporations commit particularly heinous crimes: rescinding corporate charters and jailing their executives.
I don’t believe the government should have the power to censor political parties or interest groups, but I don’t consider limiting expenditure on electioneering communications censorship and most people agree with me.
Why bother? If they have no rights and deserve none, they have no right to a trial. Simply pass a law allowing confiscation of their assets and go grab them. No process necessary.
THAT is what having no rights means.
Fine, but that’s not the issue.
Then you believe those groups have the same rights as individuals.
So don’t ever claim otherwise.
That’s a different issue. That’s about the right to spend money on rights, not about groups vs. individuals (unless you think individuals have that right but groups don’t).
No more talk of groups having no rights please.
This would be covered in transfer of equity. If there is no collective ownership, then ownership transfers to the individual, for which there is a remedy against state seizure of land (fourth amendment).
I think it’s wholly consistent to say that the government should not censor groups because of the individual right to free speech.
Then the group simply doesn’t exist. It’s simply a collection of individual holdings that happen to be in the same place. It can’t do anything without its individual members. It’s not really a group.
Confiscation isn’t the only issue. Can a group spend money? Incur debt? Sue in court to protect its interests? Or must every individual member do those things all at once? All those things require a group to have rights as a group. When a group spends money, must every member of the group write a check for $3.22 to cover that expenditure? Of course not. It’s absurd. A group is a group, and exists independent of its members.
I’m glad you now finally come out and say that groups have rights. Keep saying that.
Such an arrangement isn’t common to every country with political parties.
No, but there is no right to derive profits from the result of illegal activities with no consequences.
Can you think of an instance where a group is censored without an individual being censored?
It’s not logically possible to have a political party with no rights whatsoever.
Nobody said there was. Nobody.
Really? Of course I can. A group puts out a statement and the group is charged a fine for it or its offices and assets are seized. Or a group puts out a newsletter and it is confiscated. (I’m referring to “censored” or otherwise persecuted for speech).
I suppose you want to find a situation where an individual is speaking on behalf of a group and the individual is told to stop speaking. Then the individual protests, and is told he has a right to speak, but not for the group or not using group assets - the government can ban any mention of the group by him? Or it can let him speak, but not spend any of the group’s money to distribute his comments in a newsletter to its members or the public? Even if we actually entertain this ridiculous idea, can’t you see how this infringement of groups rights infringes on the rights of the group’s members, and individuals? If you can see that it does, then what’s the point of making the distinction?
Colloquially, but it is possible for there to be no legislation enshrining a right and for the right to exist. Like the positive right to vote.
Both of these contravene the fifth amendment. The individuals whose assets are seized are the injured party, not the group.
No, the group is.
The individuals donated to the group. They don’t own the group.