I think that phrasing is deceptive. The question isn't whether corporations are people with rights, but whether people retain their rights when they coordinate the exercise thereof through a corporation, which includes non-profit groups. It should be a red flag that abolishing that right would abolish the free press without some special exemption. That requires the government to start defining who is press and who is not, which if anything is a quickly fading distinction. The distinction between MSNBC/Fox News and a SuperPAC is not so clear. (Thankfully, we have such an exemption because the first amendment particularly protects the freedom of the press, in addition to the general freedom of speech. There's a lot of examples of redundant provisions in the Constitution, and I think this is one of them. The freedom of the press flows naturally from all of the other freedoms in the Constitution.)

The particular case was actually about a political group that made a film criticizing Hillary back in 2008 during the primary season. The government wanted to ban them from promoting it during the two months leading up to the election. How can anyone think that's proper?

Let's say that you and I shared a passion for a political idea. We want to convince people of it and effect change through the political process. What would we do? We'd set up a non-profit (a corporation), convince donors of our cause, spend their money on pamphlets, broadcast ads, internet ads, discussion forums, etc. We'd support candidates that back our idea, and oppose those who oppose it. That is freedom at work and it's exactly what the Citizens United decision protects.

You are incorrect. Citizens United was decided based on the notion of corporate personhood -- the notion that corporations themselves have rights as if they are a person. There are very succinct and upheld limitations on individual monetary contribution to campaigns.

However CU broke that by giving people the ability to launder political money through a corporation.

Also, most non-profits (those 501c3s that want tax exemption) can not do any sort of campaigning. Those that do are subject to taxes.

CU said specifically that corporations are people that can "say" (aka spend) whatever they want to get their message across. People can make individual donations to support this effort essentially getting around existing campaign restrictions.

Money does not equal speech and there was a good reason monetary donations were restricted. By removing the restrictions they have reduced the ability of the average person to be heard because they now have to buy a bigger megaphone than the billionaires.

You really do need to read up on corporate personhood and election law. Let me guess... FOX News fan?

It's right there in the SCOTUS decision itself, spelled out clearly and unambiguously.

"The principle at stake is not peculiar to unions. It is applicable as well to associations of manufacturers, retail and wholesale trade groups, consumers' leagues, farmers' unions, religious groups, and every other association representing a segment of American life and taking an active part in our political campaigns and discussions .... It is therefore important -- vitally important -- that all channels of communication be open to [all of the above types of associations] during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community."

Scalia's comment in CU itself is relevant here:

"The [First] Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker"

In this case, he's referring to the "category" of a corporation, which is referenced in the 1886 decision Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania:

"corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose"

which parallels the 1830 statement in Providence bank vs Billings by Chief Justice Marshall:

"The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men."

and even further back, to the 1790 case The Rev John Bracken v. The Visitors of Wm & Mary College, which was in essence about the question of whether those running the college were bound by the decisions of its original founders or whether they had the right to, collectively, make changes according to their assessment of how to best carry out the common purpose for which the college existed.

While not directly about speech, the 1819 case Dartmouth College v. Woodward establishes limits on the legislature's ability to modify private contracts, such as the charter that established Dartmouth, and a series of later decisions specified that any modification must not harm shareholders, founders, members, etc.

And Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886) establishes (indirectly) that corporations are entitled to the same type of 14th amendment due-process and equal-protection rights as individuals. Basically, just because people have organized into a group doesn't mean the government can treat them worse than it would if they were not corporately organized.

For the immediate future, even a 4-4 court is a marked improvement from the pov of democrats.

While I believe the immediate announcements are token and positioning (the more obstinate they appear, the better the odds of a more moderate candidate) it doesn't make me LIKE it any better.

Which is why they are likely to put up token opposition - enough to placate their supporters. Everyone panders to the center when election time comes, because that's where most of the voters are. This is why the rhetoric is extreme during the primaries, but is significantly toned afterwards.

This isn't unprecedented. Obama is a lame-duck President facing a majority opposition party in both Houses of Congress. His influence is close to its nadir. Scalia is a lion of the GOP. It would have been hard to replace him in 2015. It's probably impossible in 2016.

The GOP is making Scalia's replacement a campaign issue. So be it! If the Democrats win, they'll have earned a mandate to replace a lion of the Republican Party with a committed liberal.

"Them" being Republicans, or Democrats? Trying to understand.