Worded that way, I'd have to say no. But clearly the subtext is <i>Citizens United</i>, which I think is a lot trickier. A lot of important 20th-century free-speech precedents depend on applying the First Amendment to corporations--- corporations like record labels, newspaper/magazine/book publishers, film production and distribution companies, even adult film theatres. It's possible that a narrow First-Amendment exception can be carved out for direct electioneering on the part of corporations, but I think the proposal that the First Amendment doesn't apply to corporations <i>at all</i> is a cure much worse than the disease.