That's not my understanding of the relevant precedents--- the Supreme Court has never interpreted the "freedom of the press" to refer to a specially protected class of reporters or news companies, or limited it to reporting the news. It has been held to protect the First Amendment rights of not only news corporations like the New York Times, but also companies that produce pornographic films and magazines, for example (one of the important precedents on the First Amendment's protection of parody involves an issue of <i>Hustler</i>). It seems to have been read much more broadly to mean, roughly, "the freedom to publish things, like books, newspapers, and films". For example, films like <i>Hillary: The Movie</i>, which was the thing at issue in <i>Citizens United</i>.<p>I think there's probably some way the other outcome could've been reached, but it would be trickier than I think a lot of people are arguing. It would have to be a narrow prohibition against direct electioneering by corporations, carved out as a First-Amendment exception due to the compelling government interest in free elections/etc. (similarly to how obscenity, libel, false advertising, and "false-light disclosure of private facts" are recognized exceptions). And then specific cases would have to be investigated to see which side of the line they fell on: for example, to determine whether <i>Hillary: The Movie</i> was a real movie, or pure electioneering disguised in a sham movie.