I would no sooner lead a charge against the first amendment than I would lead your grandmother over a cliff.
But you are being obtuse, either intentionally or blindly, if you fail to see the problem that the SCOTUS decision has unleashed.
The argument that the corporation "represents" the stockholders is not fal;se but is very incomplete. Often the stockholders are blind to the decisions made in their name because they are merely investors and usually interested only in the quarter's returns, yes? That means ANY conduct which yields short-term gain even if it is unethical (such as selling poisionous fertilizers to third world countries because they've been outlawed here) does the trick of "representing" the stockholders. But if you were to ask them if they wanted to poison farmlands in Uruguay, they would recoil and deny it. This is the Big Blind Spot of the unwitting stockholder and to claim that the loud bullyragging of some corporation is "representative" of its stockholderts in the sense of a democratic vox populi is just BS. The corporation in general is BETTER off not informing its stockholders. This violates the fundamental equation of Jeffersonian democracy.