"As a Constitutional issue it's pretty clear to me and the majority of the Supremes" - that depends upon what kind of philosophy you take on approaching the role of the Supreme Court, activism to change policy versus narrow interpretation of the Constitution.<p>It's simplistic to say that Citizens United ruling is simply a matter of suppression vs. free speech, as Buckley v. Valeo has nuanced to what extent "money" constitutes speech.  As Justice Stevens writes in his dissent, "At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."<p>Several people have cited examples of free speech and the press.  The Citizens United ruling lifts restrictions of corporate spending in political ads during election campaigns with in-house corporate treasury funds, i.e. unfettered free speech at any time.  Rather than looking at NYT Co v. Sullivan, look Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce's interpretation. <a href="http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/updates/the_supreme_court.html?AID=1457" rel="nofollow">http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/updates/the_supreme_cour...</a><p>Excerpted: 
"Austin’s critics aspire to dissolve all this complexity into a simplistic choice between speech and suppression.  In attacking the "political support" language of Austin, they take it to be something strange, an import into the jurisprudence of a notion at odds with core First Amendment values.  What they miss is its surprising ordinariness.  The Austin case was getting at something important, even—one could say—basic to the mechanisms within the campaign finance laws for isolating the corruptive threat of aggregated group or associational spending."<p>I'm not arguing that corporations be denied their political speech via spending, which was outside of the case ruling anyway.<p>Free speech is controlled in very specific cases because of its potential injurious impacts - libel, safety, individuals versus entities, etc.  What I take issue with is the extent of power given to special interest groups and lobbyists that override the interests of individual citizens.  Is there a difference between groups of people coming together and pooling their money to form a PAC and group of people expressing political views of an entire corporation using corporation treasury funds?<p>And if you want to go into fringe, extreme positions: what about tax-paying subsidiaries in the US headed by groups of American citizens, but owned by foreign corporations?  Should they not then be entitled to equal free speech in our elections?<p>In any case, it will be interesting to see what comes of the ruling, and thanks for highlighting those two cases.