The court's decision, as I understand it, was that people do not lose their right to free speech merely because they exercise it while involved in a corporation.  So, the logical extreme is that people should not lose their right to run for office even if involved in a corporation, right?<p>People seem to want to spin this as "people involved in corporations gain a 'free speech' right that they wouldn't have if they were just a rich person", which would seem pretty bizarre, if it were actually what was said.