1. This has nothing to do with the decision in Citizens United. This is about anti-trust regulation, which regulates collusive behavior, not speech. Any speec

1. This has nothing to do with the decision in Citizens United. This is about anti-trust regulation, which regulates collusive behavior, not speech. Any speech incidental to such a conspiracy (whether to rob a bank or fix wages in a labor market) is not protected anyway, whether it's an individual or a corporation speaking. 2. Please don't misrepresent the decision in Citizens United to make it stand for something which it does not. The holding in Citizens United was not that corporations == natural persons or that corporations have the same rights as natural persons. The holding was that that natural persons don't lose their rights to free speech (paid for with their own funds) because they join together into legal associations. Similar to how natural persons don't lose their 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure or their 5th amendment protections against the government seizing their property when they form such associations.