One hopes the Court will recognize that Corporations are not equal to individual citizens and have immense power to rule all speech. Individuals do not have a chance to be heard despite tecnological advances. The power of corporations in relation to their "personhood" has been debated in this country since essentially Cornelius Vanderbilt and Andrew Jackon's day, but this campaign issue is of great importance to our futures. If "speech" is imagined as "wet" there is a big difference in an eyedropper getting something wet and an Exxon supertanker sized container flooding what we are getting wet. If corporations are given complete freedom to compete with individuals, we are giving our country, its government and our futures over to corporations and have set ourselves back to period of worst corporate excesses of the pre-Roosevelt 1890's.

When we get down to it there's a lot of slicing and dicing to be done. Is political speech fundamentally different from commercial speech? If so, why? Would a pro-corporate decision in this case set aside the prohibitions on cigarette advertising? The tobacco companies spent a lot of money promoting the idea of unlimited corporate speech, only to lose in court and in congress.

I agree, but would point out that this is currently the status quo - corporations, which have no natural right to freedom of speech, vastly outweigh citizens in the public debate. I harbor no illusions on the efficacy of the rule of law as it tries to contain the vast power and single-mindedness of corporations, but I don't think that a full abandoning of the rights of individuals to matter in the public arena is warranted.