Please. Citizen's United was not a reversal of the understanding of speech. Efforts to convince you of that were propaganda. The Courts detailed the corporate p

Please. Citizen's United was not a reversal of the understanding of speech. Efforts to convince you of that were propaganda. The Courts detailed the corporate personhood doctrine in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, discussing how corporations have rights because their owners have rights and the corporation is a way for these owners to get together and exercise these rights as a group. These rights include freedom of speech and of the press. Moreover, allow me to remind you that Citizens United is actually a nonprofit group+ and the thing this case was actually about was making an anti-Hilary movie, and being barred from distributing it. Anyone who has glanced at the Bill of Rights, and the history of this nation and its jurisprudence in the area of free speech, could have seen this result coming. (Somehow there are many people not aware of this fact.) (+ not a charity, contributions aren't tax deductible; just a standard 504 not-for-profit.) This may or may not be good policy. It's eminently open to debate. But hewing to precedent like this is supposed to be your evidence of the Court acting on a whim?!?