banding together into corporate entities is the only way free speech can exist for anyone except billionaires.

I like the possibilities of this. If a group forms a corporation and puts out some really libelous ads--"Rush Limbaugh sacrifices goats before each show, to appease his Dark Master! Devil is jealous that Cheney's getting BBQ every day!"--who would be sued for libel? That's the point of a corporation, that an individual is safe from liability.

Should corporations be denied the right to freedom of the press, too?

First of all -- and I know *you* didn't say this, P-C; I'm just addressing it -- the weak-ass reason the SCOTUS gave was that corporations deserved freedom of *speech,* not the press.

Second, actually, how "free" is speech when it's controlled by the people who can pay the most for it? That seems like the opposite of free to me.

Ahrg. 4:30 on a friday curse strikes yet again.

In hearings on the case, an FEC official openly said the law would ban publishers from publishing political books

I highly doubt that.

banding together into corporate entities

I'm not an expert, but I would think that entities defined by law could have restrictions on how they use their treasuries. This is overturning laws from 1907 that I think (again, not an expert) have be argued before. So the decision is overturning precedent. We still restrict their ability to use their treasury to donate to a candidate, why can't we restrict the purchasing of political ads. Again, this is restricting the legal entity, not individuals.

Also, I'm not sure why boobies can be shown in an ad, but there can't be a reasonable restriction on the amount of political advertising that can be done by a single entity. A case of fair access. In a small market, a big corporation could conceivably saturate the radio and TV media, drowning out the speech of others. How much would it be worth to Exxon-Mobil (just an example) to keep a small state senator from getting elected if they represent the likely 60th vote for a key bit of environmental legislation? $100 million, $500 million? A billion? It would be bad PR, but it might be worth choking out any opposition.

That's the point of a corporation, that an individual is safe from liability.

Yes, but if it can be shown that the corporation was formed for the purpose of shielding the individuals, that protection is withdrawn.

Long time since I studied basic corporate law, but Vortex, isn't the corporation recognized as long as the corporate forms (shareholder meetings, board meetings, separate books and records) are honored?

Crazy Mom has been cut loose. I saw her today in playgroup--I had to give her a check for the hair stylist. I tolerated her showing her daughter's hair to Olivia and "discussing" her wrong doing for a minute (the hair is thinner but doesn't look THAT bad at all). That was fine. BUT a little while later she sat down next to me and "suggested" that I might want to give Olivia one less birthday gift and remind her at her party, that that money was spent fixing E's hair, rather than on another birthday gift.

I firmly explained that Liv wasn't going to be thinking about this incident two weeks from now, and I was done talking about it with her.

This woman needs some internet friends, so she can share her crazy with them and not take it out on you.

BUT a little while later she sat down next to me and "suggested" that I might want to give Olivia one less birthday gift and remind her at her party, that that money was spent fixing E's hair, rather than on another birthday gift.

JEBUS. What the effing eff?!?!?!?