I can't help but agree with the majority opinion, not to mention in the case the Attorney General made a good case for why by the letter of the law made virtually all public political speech illegal. McCain Feingold Act is a great example of crony Republican big government control that Democrats vehemently opposed until the Union exemption was put in place. The law was BAD and so was the sell out.
A corporation is only a group of people, and as people should have the right to peacefully assemble. Numbers have power which is why the right to peacefully assemble is opposed by oppressive government, and why it is a protected right in our constitution.
The only time corporations become corrupt institutions is when they are empowered by government to do so. Big corporations have the money and resources to find legal ways around such laws, not to mention it gives congress power to play favorites which is exactly how this case played out. Of all the groups that would be charged with violating McCain Feingold, is it a coincidence that speech that put a powerful political parties front runner in a negative light would conveniently tie the speech up in court just long enough?
Getting government out of business is the best way to keep business interests out of government any further than to respect the interests of any individual regardless of who they associate with and how.
Transparency in this case, as mentioned in the majority opinion, is going to be the key to fair elections. Let people know when information is put out with a political interest, at least in the case of public elections, that people know where that money comes from, and for the sake of privacy, allow <$100 monthly contributions be anonymous, and any amount greater to be in the best interest of the people to be disclosed.
Don't punish people for working together. This case can be no better example without loss of generality that McCain Feingold, while possibly well intended, failed to serve and in this case corrosive to its own purpose.