Seriously, this is merely one step closer to outright corporatism. Now the legal readings and ramifications can be debated intellectually......from the definition of 'person' to the controversial note-writing of J.C. Bancroft Davis in 1886. This ruling takes power away from the individual citizen and consolidates more power in the hands of the board of directors....who wield the combined power, money and ideological aims of those who both work for and own shares in the company. But those employees are not able to control where the fruit of their labors go, nor is it clear that those employees would even know where that money goes.
The ruling also adds consolidated power to the incestuous relationship between politics and the media, as all mainstream media outlets are corporate owned. I have no doubt that anyone who supports this ruling is either terminally inept, or merely recognizes that their chosen political party will be the beneficiary of this ruling and are willing to surrender democratic principles and liberty for that end. To be clear...I don't believe in allowing unions this power either....in both cases, money derived from employees can be used against the wishes of said employee. If like minded groups of individuals wish to come together in the form of a PAC, and use raised money for political ends....I have no issues. But voting and the political process should be centered on the individual, voting citizen.
I for one realize that this ruling does not allow corporations to donate money to candidates directly.....that question has yet to be addressed by SCOTUS. But corporations can run their own ads for specific candidates....as long as the disclaimer is present recording who paid for the ad. Not too much difference, no?
My major issue with the ruling stems to the perception of 'personhood' for corporations. Your employer or union is now edging increasingly closer to holding the same electoral rights as you. When corporations are held to a judicial standard commensurate with individuals, then a case can be made for personhood.
What's troubling to has is two aspects: firstly, the corporate board members or union officers have doubled their power in advocacy for candidates or issues. They retain the individual power to donate and speak out, and they now have the corporate power to do likewise. You and I are left with half of the ability to influence elections. This is vastly different than groups of consensual, like-minded individuals committing to a political cause or candidate.
Secondly, corporations and unions can use the real dollars or the fruits of labor of member, employees and shareholders to fund issues or candidates that very likely do not represent the political interests of all of the organization.
Those who state that the ultimate power still resides in the individual voter are correct technically speaking...but consider that all media outlets are corporate owned and corporations that have been bailed out or retain lucrative contracts with the federal government [especially those that depend on a specific brand of Administration] have the ability to channelize and narrow information that is available to the voter.