Apparently in yours: “Why do you suppose right-wingers everywhere are cheering on a dodge of the distinction between Microsoft and the Red Cross, or Google vs ACLU?”

“Yes, and Barack Obama is a right-wing conservative politician.”

Then why does he support McCain -Feingold?

…and in what universe is McCain not a right-winger?

Google is a huge backer of Barack Obama.

Yes, and Barack Obama is a right-wing conservative politician.

The justices upheld the discloure laws 8-1.

For one, McCain-Feingold itself did not make the distinction. Both individuals associated with Google and the ACLU had their first amendments rights violated.

Secondly, it should be noted, Google is a huge backer of Barack Obama. Indeed, that’s not an outlier. The Democratic party gets far more corporate money the the Republican one (and obviously more union money).

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectorall.php?cycle=2008

So the insinuation of the question (Why do you suppose right-wingers everywhere…) is indeed incorrect.

The “corporations should have no (or extremely restricted) free speech rights” also makes the degree of permissible speech restriction depend on form rather than the underlying substance. Whether a business, nonprofit, union, or any other organization chooses act through a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, unincorporated association, or other form depends on tax and liability considerations that have nothing to do with the social value of their speech (or lack thereof).

The problems posed by allowing entities like ExxonMobil Corporation to engage in unlimited political expenditures are the danger of drowning out other voices and the risk of de facto corruption. These dangers would be no less severe if ExxonMobil were organized as an LLC or even as a common-law general partnership.

FWIW, I disagree with the Citizens United decision and strongly support restricting ExxonMobil Corporation’s ability to run political ads. But the rights of for-profit business enterprises versus unions versus not-for-profit advocacy organizations should have nothing to do with the particular legal form they use to organize their affairs.

Soon, however, it may be that Internet sources, such as blogs and social networking Web sites, will provide citizens with significant information about political candidates and issues. Yet, §441b would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds…. The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech.

While the government might not be able to censor Feministe, it could probably shut down RH Reality Check.

For defenders of the decision there is no difference between the ACLU and Google. “Both corporations, don’t you see?” There is, on other hand, a huge gulf between direct campaign contributions and independent expenditures. All the difference in the world. And here you are telling us that a PAC is just like a corporate expenditure.

But the ACLU and Google, both corporations, are two entirely different things, just like a Volkswagen and a Boeing 747 are two entirely different things, despite both being “transportation vehicles.” Finding some category into which two things both fit doesn’t make them the same.

Similarly, independent expenditure are not actually much different from campaign contributions. They have the same goal, and the money is spent on the same types of activities.

And finally, PAC’s are different than corporate contributions. For one thing, they rely mostly on individual – hence actually voluntary – contributions. For another, related to that, despite their size they don’t command the kind of funds big corporations do.

I think this first distinction – ACLU vs. Google – is the most important, and it is one the court spent a lot of time dodging. Why they did that is left as an exercise for the reader.

Why do you suppose right-wingers everywhere are cheering on a dodge of the distinction between Microsoft and the Red Cross, or Google vs ACLU?

Lateral thinking, peeps! It’s good for you!

Has a corporation ever won an Oscar? Or an Emmy? Or the Nobel Peace Prize? Or the Pulitzer Prize in Biography?

Dunno about the Oscar, Emmy, and Pulitzer, but as for the Nobel:

1999
1997
1985
1977
1947

Possibly also 1995, 1969, 1963, 1944, 1938, 1910, and 1904, but the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, International Labour Organization, League of Red Cross Societies, International Committee of the Red Cross, Nasen International Office for Refugees, Permanent International Peace Bureau, and Institute of International Law are all non-U.S. entities and I wasn’t able to figure out if they use the corporate form. Various national Red Cross organizations are incorporated but I don’t know if the LRCS or ICRC are.

Never thought I’d live to see the day when the U.S. Supreme Court would hand down a ruling worse than Dred Scott.

Dred Scott: Black people are “so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

Citizens United: Corporations may spend money on campaign speech directly, rather than having to do it through a political action committee, provided they include the “I’m GlaxoSmithKline, and I approved this message”* disclosure and file documents with the Federal Election Commission stating the amount spent, the election the money was spent on, and the names of certain financial backers.

When the OP called loosening the restrictions on corporate campaign advertising the end of democracy, I thought it displayed a lack of proportion. Calling it worse than declaring that black people have no rights is heinously offensive.

* Technically the required message is “GlaxoSmithKline is responsible for the content of this advertising.” The disclosure statement must be in audio and must also be displayed on the screen “in a clearly readable manner with a reasonable degree of color contrast between the background and the printed statement, for a period of at least 4 seconds.” 2 U.S.C. 441d(d)(2).