That's absolutely true! However, I think restricting corporate speech is a misguided way of going about balancing the free speech rights so that the wealthy can

That's absolutely true! However, I think restricting corporate speech is a misguided way of going about balancing the free speech rights so that the wealthy can't overwhelm the rest of us with their ability to marshal the (digital) presses. Like I pointed out in my original comment, restricting corporate speech would hurt individuals of lesser means as much, if not more, than it would hurt wealthy individuals. The real "problem" is that the US has the First Amendment, which guarantees both free association and free speech in a relatively absolutist manner. Unrestricted corporate speech is a result of the confluence of those two conditions. I can associate with whomever I please, so long as it is not for a criminal purpose, and I can say whatever I want (subject to the usual restrictions around threats and direct incitements to violence). So of course, I can gather with like-minded individuals to say things more loudly. I don't think the solution to this "problem" has anything to do with speech laws. The root cause, as you pointed out, is the massive disparities in wealth. If we addressed that, then the problem of the wealthy being able speak more goes away, without us having to weaken the First Amendment, a step I am very averse to taking.