Here's the ideologically libertarian position. Eugene Volokh posits:

[If] ordinary business corporations lack First Amendment rights, so do those business corporations that we call media corporations.

Ilya Somin adds:

[R]estricting corporate speech simply exacerbates imbalances of political power caused by other, much greater inequalities. Maybe restricting corporate speech could promote equality if it were part of a much more comprehensive regulatory effort. For example, government could also restrict political advocacy by reporters, academics, celebrities, and others with disproportionate influence. There are, of course, good reasons not to do any such thing. But if you eliminate one cause of inequality while leaving other more severe ones in place, the net impact is actually to increase political inequality overall, not reduce it.

Mark Thompson has more:

[T]he existing system’s response to free speech concerns (PACs) acts only to ensure that large corporations are already able to have near-unfettered participation in the electoral process, as long as they first overcome some regulatory hurdles that are relatively minor for them but are significant for smaller, less sophisticated enterprises. Smaller corporations are effectively shut out of the system, thereby reinforcing the oligopoly of influence over elections and influence markets enjoyed by their larger, more sophisticated brethren. This changes that. Yes, it removes the bar on direct participation that large corporations had to skirt via PACs, but this was hardly an effective or meaningful bar for those corporations in the first place.

My take here.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.