Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

This 2010 case is one of the most controversial of the century. It led to editorials, protests and even a rebuke from President Obama during his state of the union address (and one justice mouthing "not true" in response).

The case involves Section 203, which, speaking loosely, limits when a corporation can run a broadcast opposing a political candidate. The majority held that these limits violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The dissent (and the government during briefing) argued that the restriction was supported based on three interests. First, an anticorruption interest to prevent corporations from corrupting the political process. Second, an antidistortion interest to prevent corporate wealth from distorting the political process. And third, shareholder protection to prevent corporate shareholders from losing profits that would otherwise be spent on political campaigning.

After this case, anti-corporate protestors raised a rallying cry that "corporations are not people." As you read, consider the majority's and the dissent's view of corporate personality. Which theory of corporate personality is used by the majority? How about the dissent?