Actually, Mike. I'd be interested.
I believe corporations...or any communal entity (which includes non-profits, collectives, committees)...do have the inherent right to an opinion, based upon the business interests of the entity. Examples would be oil companies expressing support for drilling rights, or a women's shelter voicing their concerns over domestic abuse.
But they are not people and should not enjoy a commensurate protection of their opinion. I believe the communal group ought to be held to a higher, and therefore more restricted standard, which includes provisions against anonymity as an example. It ought to be acceptable for a person to send a letter to an editor anonymously, for instance, but it should not be for a communal organization to do the same. (The Church of Latter Day Saints' anonymous campaign against Prop 8 should not enjoy the same protections as would one single person's posting on Facebook opposing it.)
The rational being that if Sheldon Adelson wishes to spend $10M of his own money to advocate for Gingrich he ought to be able to do so. But giving money to an entity anonymously -- except when someone in that organization has a big mouth
-- should not enjoy the same protections if your money is to be lumped with a bunch of other people's. There is a fundamental reason campaign contributions are limited, and that is essential to avoid the domination of "big money" in politics.
We have precisely the situation which our predecessors sought to avoid in the creation of those laws, and are seeing precisely the result they had most feared. The laws were set in place after previous generations fought against political corruption, and now we've done little more than loose that genie from the bottle one more time.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.