Reply #15: well, THAT opinion differs from previous precedents, too...

[mike_c]

...if I'm not mistaken. And it's an unnecessary argument anyway if corporate personhood is rescinded. That's the problem with trying to have their cake and eat it too-- folks want to somehow reverse this decision without going right to the corporate personhood that underlies it, and the only way to do that is to split hairs about what "speech" is and what it isn't. Rescinding corporate personhood solves that problem MUCH more neatly, IMO.