But if you can explain how overturning Citizen's United wouldn't run into that problem while this idea I'd find that helpful.
OTOH, Libel in the US is already a thing. I'm saying extending those laws to make "the American people" a group that has standing, and falsehoods something that has harm. There is some existing precedent for that under libel.
It's easy to argue that corporations and unions don't deserve free speech as their directors, employees and members are all entitled to free speech individually.
However the press is different. Nobody, rightly so, wants to limit the press to say and print whatever they like (so long as it's not slander/libel) and today's press is made up of corporations.
How do we keep a free press and silence other corporations?
But I only forgot about it because I simply don't see how that matters in an real way.
Even if corporate personhood went away then (actual, real human) people would be paid to speak for a corporation, and then you hit the the 1st Amendment rights issues again.
There are proper campaign finance laws which regulate the above. Nothing is currently regulating SuperPACs at the moment, even American divisions of foreign corporations can accept money.
I think that the US progressive establishment's fixation on the Citizen's United case is misguided.
I'm biased towards the idea that speech should be free, and tend to think that this should include spending money on making your view heard.
I think that effort could be better spend on attempting to fix the problem of wrong speech: if people are pushing political agendas using things that are factually incorrect that should be restricted. IANAL, but I think that this is likely to be more legally achievable in the US too: IS libel laws have a model of truth as a defense, and it seems to me this could be a framework for regulating false political speech.