I agree with basically everything you've said here, but I am more pessimistic about the outcome of this case if heard before the current supreme court. While th

I agree with basically everything you've said here, but I am more pessimistic about the outcome of this case if heard before the current supreme court. While the court seems biased in a partisan manner towards Republicans (for instance, issuing rulings from the "shadow docket" without hearing arguments in a manner that consistently favors Republican interests), it seems unlikely that they would in any way restrict the ability of the rich and corporations to pour money into politics. One last thought is the the supreme court is essentially unrestricted in its power to interpret law via judicial review. But nowhere in the constitution was the court given power of judicial review. They invented it for themselves in Marbury v Madison. Given that context it seems pretty clear that they can decide who or what are persons in the eye of the law.