Its not about personhood, it's about free speech. The personhood ship has sailed.
This case may roll forward the rights of corporations to influence any or all elections but it will not consider rolling back any such privileges of personhood to any mega corporation.    The question of personhood and human rights status for corporations has already been established for the purposes of economic profitability unencumbered by personal liability. This case can only expand corporate freedoms. The court is not hearing this case to reduce them.
So in my opinion the question of trying to redefine corporate personhood is moot.

Certainly participating in elections for the purpose of representation in the government is an economic concern for corporations.

Just because we may not trust corporations or have a bad feeling about them is not reason enough to deny them free speech. It would be unconstitutional to deny Carol or Little Hawk freedom of speech simply because we don't like the look in their eye.






Now if I were to argue against corporate freedom of speech particularly in all US elections I would consider these arguments;

Exactly what and who is the corporate voice?
The CEO will be the person deciding how speech/money is spent without the stock holders knowing a thing. If we assume the CEO is speaking with a shared intent of the shareholders all is fine and dandy.    A foreign or domestic CEO does not have to tell the shareholders a word. So the question of who is the true voice of the corporation has a large role to play in this case.


Most importantly…:
If the CEO of a multinational corporation supports a legal candidate with $47 Billion, could we ignore the election laws that prevent foreign nationals or foreign companies from giving money to US candidates.
Now consider a rogue American CEO of a corporation like Wal-Mart doing half of its business in China deciding to voice his or her free speech/money against the will of shareholders and the Untied States. Suppose the candidate funded by the corporate CEO intends to cause serious harm to the United States for the profitability of the corporation, there is nothing we can do to stop her or him from doing so, just as we have seen Enron, Goldman Sachs, Countrywide Mortgage and AIG do.   



The main issue is that of preserving democracy and democratic elections. Does giving unlimited economic power to one specific candidate help preserve democracy? Should we define unlimited economic advantage as free speech?


now Justice Roberts, go decide.