Quote Originally Posted by Lemur View Post
The implication of your reasoning is that corporate entities are entitled to the full protection of the first amendment. Thus they are citizens, or equivalent. I don't see how you can whistle past the obvious.
Again, look at the decision:
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech
This is exactly what McCain-Feingold was trying to do- criminally sanctioning citizens for making political speech. Whether the association is a corporation or a boy scout troop makes no difference to that. Yourself and the OP are just injecting one of your pet peeves (corporate personhood) into this situation where it isn't really relevant. The decision, as I read it, says that any citizen or association of citizens has the right to engage in political speech. McCain-Feingold was overruled because it singled out corporations as a specific group that would be denied free speech. I see nothing to indicate that the case would have been decided differently in the absence of corporate personhood- thus it's tangential to the issue. Corporations aren't being extended free speech because they are "persons", they were being unconstitutionally denied it on the basis of being a corporation.