Let's actually take a look at the two scenarios.<p>In the case of corporation-owned property, the shareholders indirectly own the property itself. If the government takes away the property, the shareholders lose the property, and the government violates the takings clause insofar as individual humans have lost money.<p>In the case of corporate speech, the shareholders are not speaking at all. Instead, executives are speaking, protected from the consequences of their speech by the corporate shield. In comparison with the above case, nothing stops the individual executives or the individual shareholders from speaking, either by themselves or in concert with others.<p>What I'm suggesting is that the form of the corporation, which the government created to shield actors from the consequences of their actions, is not <i>itself</i> afforded the right to speech.