Very funny.

The problem is that the majority opinion repeatedly referred to “corporations or other associations” and no where referred to the legal theory that corporations are legal persons.

The only reason the ruling is obnoxious is that the management of corporations has stopped working for their shareholders and started working for themselves (oh, for a generation of Jay Goulds, “The public be d*mned, I work for my shareholders”!), and without some reform, it would be the management of corporations using their shareholders’ resources (remember corporations belong to their shareholders, folks saving for pensions, and so forth) to engage in political speech.

I suggest that Campaign Finance Reform v 2.0, besides requiring a heavy dose of transparency, require that expenditures by corporations or unions that either 1) explicitly or implicitly endorse or oppose a candidate running for public office or 2) engage in advocacy on an issue in contention during any election campaign be approved in terms of their purpose, their amount, and the venues of publication by a majority vote of the shareholders or members.

The majority opinion vindicates the free speech rights of corporations and unions as associations, meaning derivative from the rights of those associated, meaning the shareholders and members, not corporate managers or union bosses, who are, in the eyes of the law, fiduciaries for the shareholders or members, even if they all think of themselves as bosses and de facto owners.