Alla-Fonte.it

"Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition
on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions.[...]

"Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence. [...]"

"Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on
certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion. [...]"

"First Amendment protections do not depend on the speaker’s “financial ability to engage in
public discussion.”"

"The real issue in this case concerns how, not if, the appellant may finance its electioneering. [...]"

"Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), it could have used those assets to televise and promote Hillary: The Movie wherever and whenever it wanted to. It also could have spent unrestricted sums to broadcast Hillary at any time other than the 30 days before the last primary election. [...]"

"Neither Citizens United’s or any other corporation’s speech has been “banned,” ante, at 1. All that the parties dispute is whether Citizens United had a right to use the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period. The notion that the First Amendment dictates an affirmative answer to that question is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided. [...]"

   "The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corpo­ration. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. [...]"

"In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our soci­ety, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be man­aged and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legiti­mate concerns about their role in the electoral process.
Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corpo­rate spending in local and national races.
 The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past."