Here below is a recent conversation I had with a more conservative peer of mine. We were debating the rights of corporations in the context of a recent New York Times article, and how we feel about the expansion of those rights.

PEER:

Limited, sure. But in barring a corporation from expressing speech in a federal election? Nonsense.

Most winners/losers in elections are corporations; either in greater government subsidies or greater taxation and regulation. I think when a corporation is directly threatened by a politician it should have the right, as an organization of people, to express itself through paid advertising for, or against, any candidate it chooses. 

Free speech, as the old axiom goes, isn't about protecting popular speech (it doesn't need protecting) but about protecting that which people find objectionable. Similarly, corporations are inherently unpopular in politics. Their voices should be allowed to be heard.

ROSS:

Well said. However, being that corporations are institutions set up with specific purposes, namely to derive a profit, and to realize those purposes in a system with limited resources and a constantly constrained opportunity for influence, some measure of disenfranchisement has to happen, consequently lines and norms have to be institutionalized to exact a fair play system.

Follow up:

That being understood, the framework of our country depends on the delineated interests of our voters. The formation of massive voting bloc mentality via the two party system and advocacy groups certainly do their best to drive those interests, often, as Jean Jacques Rousseau might point out, to the detriment of our democracy. Although, they do a serve their purpose: Chiefly to engage the citizenry and make progress on any number of issues that members might feel need to be addressed by organization of popular support. However, an important point to note here is that in no means do any members of these groups have any obligations at any time to vote in certain fashions, beyond the ideological ones they presumably joined for in the first place, and what seems like popular support can dissolve very easily, especially with new information.

That being said, I think one should consider corporations, in effect, like giant economic advocacy firms, vying for influence in ways that will advance its directives, which, if they played by the same rules as other advocacy groups would be entirely fine. Unfortunately, when utilizing conglomerate resources to voice an opinion that is only for the benefit of itself against others (like all voices spoken in politics), it can often be much louder and more influential than any normal citizen or group of citizens could be. That is why it is very significant to put blocks on its "megaphone" capacities and reign in its abilities: so that other’s interests (the American public) can still be heard, and effectively implemented.

That being understood, harking the conservative credo of strict constitutionalism it is important to realize that all advances in the rights of corporations have come after the adoption of our founding documents. On top of that, I think that if corporate directives were also what was best for the people and demographics it affects, it should focus its resources on legally garnering support among those who have the right to influence: citizens.

Now I'd like your input. Please elaborate a point, critique or dissent away!