And this “if it’s good enough for most states” is some weak-ass tea. Those states should change this practice too, although only California and the US are my problems.

Sounds like now, more than ever, corporations and other business entities need First Amendment rights, including the right to make political donations! If its good enough for most states, who permit business entities to express their speech rights, its good enough for federal elections.

Additionally I realize that it takes money to get your message out, so to replace the corperate,union and other groups donations there needs to be publivc financing.

Then Candidates can tell you without worring what large donors or groups will do about there positions.

Allowing those indivisduals or groups with lots of money to have more free speech because they have the ablity to buy advertizing while the average person cannot, resticts the average persons right to free speech.

Okay, what about other businesses? Partnerships? Sole proprietorships?

What about associations? Labor unions? They aren’t natural persons, either. So, we should curtail their political speech, as well?

You’re going to pick and choose? Maybe that’s why the Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech”.

Now, the Supreme Court has said that no right is absolute (unlimited). The court upheld McCain-Feingold, which clearly abridges political speech (the core of First Amendment protection). Do you approve?

I thought liberals cared about free speech. Guess not.

The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech”, so things that aren’t persons are still free to speak. Corporate personhood relates to the 14th amendment, not the First Amendment.