HUFFINGTON POST: He said opponents of the 5-4 decision have conducted an effective, but misleading, public relations campaign by stressing that the court extended free speech rights to corporations.
He even praised opponents’ pithy cleverness, noting such bumper stickers as “Life Does Not Begin at Incorporation.”…
“The question is whether speech that goes to the very heart of government should be limited to certain preferred corporations; namely, media corporations,” he said. “Surely the idea that the First Amendment protects only certain privileged voices should be disturbing to anybody who believes in free speech.” … (more)
EDITOR: Is that the best justification he can give? Any company can purchase advertisements to convey their point of view. (See www.csdp.org/ads as an example). But that isn’t the same as giving to political campaigns.
Those who work for corporations are entitled to have their opinion heard, this includes management.
EDITOR: And they do… as individuals.
Citizens United doesn’t enable companies to give to political campaigns. Not directly. It says that corporate persons may buy as much airtime as they can afford.
EDITOR: Correct. See below:
The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limitation of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions,[21] i.e. that corporations and labor unions may spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates through independent communications like television advertisements.[22] This ruling was frequently interpreted as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,[23] or else removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.[24] However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect the 1907 Tillman Act’s ban on corporate campaign donations (as the Court noted explicitly in its decision[25]), nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns,[26] nor did it concern campaign contribution limits.[27] The Citizens United decision did not disturb prohibitions on corporate contributions to candidates, and it did not address whether the government could regulate contributions to groups that make independent expenditures.[22] The Citizens United ruling did however remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their treasury funds for direct advocacy. These groups were freed to expressly endorse or call to vote for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited.[28] — Wikipedia