"Are you going to lead the charge to repeal the Freedom of Speech Amendment to the Constitution?"

That question is very like:"Are you going to keep beating your wife?"
It assumes that curtailing the influence of corporate power in on the same place as stifling individual freedoms.

I submit that, no matter how you parse it, a corporation's 'speech' is ultimately the voice of one, or a very few, directors OF that corporation, and thus represents a vested interest getting an unfair advantage. Constraining that is essentially what has BEEN the principle for the last 100 years. Changing it is purely a rationalized way of enlarging certain interests influence and weakening the collective influence of individuals.