He makes a good point; the notion that corporations are “people” and therefore have rights to free speech just as real human beings is patently absurd and is a disservice to our democracy, even though that’s been the constitutional standard for decades.
But the same absurdity is being applied to unions and PACs. And if you outlaw speech for corporations but not unions and PACs, well, that’s absurd too. Corporations have shareholders just as unions and PACs have members. It would be an unequal application of the 1st Ammendment. The only solution that doesn’t run afoul of the 1st Amendment is to silence everybody who isn’t a real human being– corporations, PACs, and unions– otherwise you’d be favoring one party over another. But that’s never going to happen. So how do we counter the unequal weight of corporations in the marketplace of free speech? Well, I guess that’s what unions and PACs are for. But the reality is, there is never going to be an equal voice for everybody in the free speech marketplace. That’s a utopian ideal. After all, do you have the same voice as your average Hollywood celebrity when they spout off ad nauseaum in support of their causes? Of course not. Nobody gives a rat’s @ss what you think, because you aren’t rich and famous. Should they be banned from speaking on the grounds their voice has a greater weight in the marketplace of ideas than yours? What about the corporation known as the NYTimes? Should their editorial pages be banned? That would be the logical conclusion if we ban corporate speech on the grounds they have “more speech” than the rest of us. Keep in mind also, that this does not affect the amount corporations are allowed to donate to candidates. That remains unaffected by Citizens United.