I find it interesting how you keep managing to respond with something that I'd addressed and then deleted as non-responsive to your prior comment (here, the suggestion that the meaning of the First Amendment is clear-cut and obvious, which if true would mean that laws prohibiting libel, slander and copyright infringement are all unconstitutional).
If the meaning of the First Amendment does not require interpretation, however, then there is no issue here, as Congress did not regulate speech but only the spending of money, which is nowhere mentioned in the First Amendment. That, of course, leads to much more problematic places than your hypothetical.
Yes, Congress can pass laws prohibiting corporate entities from criticizing the government. So what? Individuals retain the right to do so, including individuals whose interests are aligned with the corporation's.
(Your parenthetical manages to misstate my argument and assume your conclusion simultaneously. The right protected is that of individuals to assemble together to more effectively promote their individual political opinions.)
no subject
If the meaning of the First Amendment does not require interpretation, however, then there is no issue here, as Congress did not regulate speech but only the spending of money, which is nowhere mentioned in the First Amendment. That, of course, leads to much more problematic places than your hypothetical.
Yes, Congress can pass laws prohibiting corporate entities from criticizing the government. So what? Individuals retain the right to do so, including individuals whose interests are aligned with the corporation's.
(Your parenthetical manages to misstate my argument and assume your conclusion simultaneously. The right protected is that of individuals to assemble together to more effectively promote their individual political opinions.)