Eugene Volokh asked a good question on Wednesday, in the wake of the SOPA/PIPA blackout:
Following Citizens United, I heard many people argue that the Court was wrong because corporations should not be seen as having First Amendment rights — not just that they do have First Amendment rights but that there’s some special compelling interest that justifies restricting corporate speech about candidates, but that corporations aren’t people and therefore can’t have First Amendment rights at all.... Let me then ask this question of our readers who take this view:
Today, Google’s U.S. query page features an anti-Stop-Online-Piracy-Act statement from Google. Say that Congress concludes that it’s unfair for Google to be able to speak so broadly, in a way that ordinary Americans (including ordinary Congressmen) generally can’t. Congress therefore enacts a statute banning all corporations from spending their money — and therefore banning them from speaking — in support of or opposition to any statute. What would you say about such a statute? Again, I limit the question to those who think corporations generally lack First Amendment rights.
Put another way: are you not worried about corporate speech when it affects the legislative process, but only when it affects the electoral process? If so, why? What's the difference that makes a difference in terms of the bothersomeness of such speech? If you do think corporations
should have the right to speak out on legislation which affects them ... then what makes Citizens United so bad?