Of course, I'd personally like to see labor unions prohibited from donating to political campaigns. They're nothing more than extortion rackets and I'd lend 100% support to a Conservative candidate that finds a means to RICO those corrupt outfits out of America forever. In my book, unions aren't comprised of people, they're made up of goons.
The Supreme Court did, in fact, order plaintiffs and defendants to re-brief and re-argue the case broader than either side intended.
Other than that, you are correct this decision did not establish corporate personhood, as liberals like to shout every day. It merely reaffirmed it.
The correct answer is HELL NO!
The CU decision was the very opposite of judicial activism. The First Amendment is absolute. You cannot attach any asterisks to it.
If the CU decision went the other way, it would create an irresistible temptation for government to define any speech it didn’t like as “corporate” in order to silence it. It would be the end of the First Amendment.
No, actually at this point, a corporation has more advantages in terms of donations. If simple terms of donations, an actual individual is limited to donation size, without using the vessel of a corporation to donate.
While a corporation is free to have a unlimited donation limit. That's how I read it, if I'm wrong, please correct me. Always learning here.
The libs haven’t thought this one through. If a corporation is not a person with regard to 1st amendment freedom of speech matters then they are not a person with regard to 1st amendment freedom of press matters either. Thus, if the liberal view prevailed then the goverment could regulate what the NY Times (or any corporate media) prints every day. Do they really want to go there?