Or so says the US Supreme Court. Sort of. Here is a great slate piece, explaining the decision, how it relates to existing laws and previous decisions and such.
I am not as exercised about this as other folks because I didn't think the existing regs had done that much to limit corporate influence. I think much of the election spending law thus far has created new business for folks who are good at figuring out how to avoid them. Plus I have been thinking that on a lot of issues, there will be corps on both sides. Not on taxes so much but on health care reform, which pitches big insurance companies against many other major corporations that face increasing health care costs.
The big conclusion of the piece is that this process is, to be political sciency, is endogenous. The Supremes will find that their new members down the road will be facing more and more questions on electoral finance law than before, and the balance may very well tip back.