From the ruling's summary: the Government’s other arguments [reason] that corporate political speechcan be banned to prevent corruption or its appearance. The

From the ruling's summary: the Government’s other arguments [reason] that corporate political speechcan be banned to prevent corruption or its appearance. The Buckley Court found this rationale “sufficiently important” to allow contribution limits but refused to extend that reasoning to expenditure limits, and the Court does not do so here. While a single Bellotti footnote purported to leave the question open, this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. Later the Court elaborates on the reasoning behind this; I suggest you read it.