How would a suggestion that corporations don't enjoy constitutional protections infringe on the individual rights of those shareholders? Let me rephrase. I be

How would a suggestion that corporations don't enjoy constitutional protections infringe on the individual rights of those shareholders? Let me rephrase. I believe that corporations are not persons. But I believe that the owners and operators of a corporation have the rights of persons, and they have the Constitutional right to use their corporate funds for political speech. There have been court rulings that oppose this view, and I'm guessing that Sotomayor agrees with those rulings (although you are right, she has not said this explicitly, I read the original article too fast and attributed views to her by association, since I know she's generally a left-wing judge.) Presumably, even if DownWithPedro Corp is forbidden from advertising on the eve of the election, I could still write an impassioned screed on the same subject in my own name. If the first amendment means anything it protects the right to pay someone to speak for you, to organize as a group to speech, to organize as a group to fund the printing of pamphlets, etc. Freedom of speech is not limited to me as individual yelling off of a soapbox. It protects my right to organize with others to print newspapers, make videos, promote videos, etc. If I'm going to organize with others, I'll often need to setup a contract to guide the organization - ie a corporate charter. Court rulings that limit the political speech of people in corporations are essentially banning one particular form of organization from speaking, and allowing others (NYTimes and Harvard Corporation get free speech, Exxon Mobil does not). Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of speech for organizations that Congress likes. It means freedom for everyone. to be honest, I think the reason this particular company (in the lawsuit under discussion) exists is not to make a profit but to protect its investors from the financial risks of being sued for libel if they released the film as a group of individuals without the benefit of limited liability. Legally, I am pretty sure libel would not protect against libel committed by the management or shareholders. In the Pfizer case I mentioned, one sales manager got 6 months of house arrest plus a $100 fine, which I frankly thought was just as unfair to Pfizer shareholders as to consumers. I don't know a whole lot about the Pfizer case. But it doesn't seem like the crime was fraud in the common law sense. Rather they failed to comply with FDA administrative procedures. At least that's my impression of the case ( http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/for-med-free-speech.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/for-med-free-speech.ht... ), correct me if I'm wrong. Six months house arrest does not seem lenient for an essentially administrative violation. I don't think that represents the sales manager getting special treatment because of limited liability protections.