"Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against lawsthat would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction "furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest." WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmentalpower, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content."
..."Courts, too, are bound by the First Amendment. We must decline to draw, and then redraw, constitutional lines based on the particular media or technology used todisseminate political speech from a particular speaker. It must be noted, moreover, that this undertaking would require substantial litigation over an extended time, all tointerpret a law that beyond doubt discloses serious First Amendment flaws. The interpretive process itself wouldcreate an inevitable, pervasive, and serious risk of chillingprotected speech pending the drawing of fine distinctions
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N Opinion of the Court that, in the end, would themselves be questionable. First Amendment standards, however, "must give the benefit of any doubt to protecting rather than stifling speech." "
I think based on these excerpts that the problem is not in the Court directly, but in their perceived obligation to extend individual rights to corporate entities. The Congress of the United States is the onlyentitiy that can reverse this unfortunate conflation. I am pretty sure that such an extension was NOT part of the FOunding Father intentions for a number of reasons, one being a decent respect for individuals and another being a distrust of oligarchy. THat's how it seems to me, anyway.