I feel that the anger about the citizens united decision is misdirected. People speak and act. The fact that they do so on behalf of a corporation is not of pr

I feel that the anger about the citizens united decision is misdirected. People speak and act. The fact that they do so on behalf of a corporation is not of primary importance. By saying that there's "corporate speech" and "personal speech", and that the latter is protected and the former not, is essentially the same reasoning that allows corporations to commit crimes with no personal crimes taking place.