[ghaff]

Corporations have had certain characteristics of people as long as they've existed. Do you want a corporation to be able to enter a contract that isn't with a specific person within the corporation, for example? Corporations also have freedom of the press/freedom of speech. The question in that decision was whether political spending by corporations was part of the free speech right. There's no question more broadly that corporations can put out a press release saying more or less anything (truthful) that they want.

This is a really lazy trope whatever you think of the specific decision's result (or the reasoning).

[mcpackieh]

> The question in that decision was whether political spending by corporations was part of the free speech right. There's no question more broadly that corporations can put out a press release saying more or less anything (truthful) that they want.

The "political spending" in the case of Citizens United was the production and dissemination of a propaganda film. If the release of a film can be restricted, why not a press release as well?

From wikipedia: "Broadcasting the film would have been a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibited any corporation, non-profit organization, or labor union from making an "electioneering communication" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time."

If the law bans "electioneering communication", could not an electioneering press release be considered such a banned communication as well?

[ghaff]

You're probably right. Most of the attention has focused on the financial angle. That said, organizations do have pretty broad latitude to advocate for laws and other outcomes. Conservation organizations do it all the time for example.