[WendyTheWillow]

But that’s not the claim. A “company” doesn’t speak, individuals do. Just because the individuals do as a result of compensation, doesn’t mean they lose their right to free expression.

You’re focusing on the “group” aspect of this, but that’s irrelevant to the argument. A PR spokesperson has individual rights, even if they choose to use that voice to advance a company’s goals.

[g-b-r]

"Corporations free speech" usually refers to the freedom of giving money to politicians, not the freedom of a PR to speech

[WendyTheWillow]

Yes, and the reasoning holds; an individual decides to do that. There’s a name on that check, a specific person who authorizes the transfer of funds. How could you ethically stop a person from authorizing that check?

[g-b-r]

Disregarding the fact that I see many ways to ethically stop corruption, when an individual *acts* in the name of a corporation, the action is a result of the corporation's functioning, not of the individual's will (were it not so, the individual would have misappropriated the funds, to my understanding).

[WendyTheWillow]

That’s what we’re discussing; I’m saying that an individual is protected in their speech while operating on behalf of a corporation, and that it’s not corruption. You declaring it so doesn’t make it so.

And yes, the individual risks acting in ways their company doesn’t like, but they can do things to lower that risk, such as asking other individuals within that corporation what their desired action is.

But it’s still individuals acting, so they’re afforded all of the protections the Constitution provides.

[g-b-r]

No, it's simply not so

[WendyTheWillow]

A better comment would attempt to explain why is my point. Thus far, you've been insistent on refusing to explain yourself or being open to alternative views.