That's silly on several levels.  See my comment on how the death penalty is easily applied or more often threatened to corporations.<p>Plus you are forgetting that this case is about a <i>non-profit</i> corporation that was blocked in promoting a movie about Hillary Clinton for the 2008 election (the case is <i>Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</i>).  You're promoting trampling on freedom of association as well, preventing a group of like minded people combining to have a voice in the political process (note that for this ruling, unions have also been freed from that appalling 1990 decision as well as McCain-Fiengold's censorship).<p>Bottom line for me: the answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not outright censorship of core political speech.  If the First Amendment means <i>anything</i>, it means the Congress can't ban core political speech.