Good points but it’s worth clarifying that this is not what the Citizens United decision said. It clarified that the state couldn’t decide that the political speech of some corporations (Hillary the Movie produced by Citizens United) was illegal speech and speech from another corporation (Farenheit 9/11 by Dog Eat Dog films and Miramax) was allowed. Understood this way it seems obvious on free speech grounds, and in fact the ACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf of Citizens United because it was an obvious free speech issue. It’s clear that people don’t and shouldn’t lose their free speech rights when they come together in a group, and there is little distinction between a corporation and a non-profit in this regard. If political speech was restricted to individuals then it would mean that even many podcasts and YouTube channels would be in violation. It also calls into question how the state would classify news media vs other media.

The case has been so badly misrepresented and become something of a talisman.

That's the first good coherent argument I've seen _for_ Citizens United. Thank you for that insight.

The actual Supreme Court decisions are pretty approachable too. I wish more people read them.

> It’s clear that people don’t and shouldn’t lose their free speech rights when they come together in a group

Should Russian (or Dutch) citizens who incorporate in America have the same free speech rights as Billy Bob in Kentucky? As in can the corporate person send millions in political ads and donations even when controlled by foreigners?

Probably. The wording of the Declaration of Independence makes it clear that rights, at least in the American tradition, are not granted to you by law, they are inalienable human rights that are protected by law. That's why immigrants, tourists, and other visitors to America are still protected by the Constitution.

Now, over time we've eroded some of that, but we still have some of the most radical free speech laws in the world. It's one of the few things that I can say I'm proud of my country for.

I don't mean Dutch immigrants - I mean Dutch people living in the Netherlands (or Russians in Russia). One can incorporate an American entity as a non-resident without ever stepping foot on American soil - do you think it's a good idea for that entity to have the same rights as American citizens, and more rights than its members (who are neither citizens, nor on American soil)?

I know that foreign nationals and foreign governments are prohibited from donating money to super PACs. They are also prohibited from even indirect, non-coordinated expenditures for or against a political candidate. (which is basically what a super PAC does).

However, foreign nationals can contribute to "Social Welfare Organizations" like the NRA which, in order to be classified as a SWO, must spend less than half it's budget on political stuff. That SWO can then donate to super PACs but don't have to disclose where the money came from.

Foreign owned companies with US based subsidiaries can donate to Super PACs as well. But the super PACs are not allowed to solicit donations from foreign nationals (see Jeb Bush's fines for soliciting money from a British tobacco company for his super pac).

I would imagine that if foreign nationals setup a corporation in the US in order to funnel money to political causes, that would be illegal. But if they are using established, legitimate businesses to launder their donations, that seems to be allowed as long as we can't prove that foreign entities are earmarking specific funds to end up in PACs and campaigns in the US.

Any entity that contributes responsibly to society should be able to get some benefits from society in return.

TIL. Thank you very much for correcting my ignorance!