There are lots of serious implications stemming from the Court's recent decision and one doesn't have to look far to find a serious discussion of them, no matter how one views the merits of the issue. See, for example, this piece on how the "High Court Campaign Finance Opinion Roils Dozens of Cases" (<a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202441779559&#38;High_Court_Campaign_Finance_Opinion_Roils_Dozens_of_Cases" rel="nofollow">http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202441779559&#38;High...</a>).<p>Since the law has recognized corporations as "legal persons" for a couple of centuries at least, all without anyone even beginning to think that a corporation is a citizen entitled to vote and to run for office, I think there is a long-standing rationale for this position that its critics need to address before simply declaring the point to be absurd. This sort of stunt obviously fails to do this. And, far from demonstrating the absurdity of the Supreme Court's position taken to a logical extreme (to paraphrase your characterization), it does no more than take a <i>straw man</i> position out to a logical extreme and therefore illustrates nothing (at least nothing serious as far as law is concerned). It is, therefore, a low form of argumentation.<p>I understand that people feel passionately about it, and therefore appreciate a clever ploy that appears to make their point, but that is really my point: it is that very animated spirit that we can have about politics that allows us to lower standards and find acceptable in that context a way of arguing that we would axiomatically reject in another context.