This doesn't seem to me to have any merit, either legally or from common sense.  Corporations have no rights under the Constitution?  Oh, so can the FBI raid the offices of any corporation without a warrant?  Could Congress pass a law prohibiting CNN from covering a war?  Obviously, the Constitution should prohibit these things, and it does.<p>The reason the court did not elaborate on its classification of corporations as "speakers" in the context of the First Amendment is that it's settled law, with a long history you could look up on Wikipedia, and none of the justices (even the dissenting ones) disagree with that classification.  The dissent of the minority was based on the idea that even though corporations should enjoy a strong right to free political speech, the state's interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption is great enough that it should be restricted in this case.<p>Addendum:  No, I don't think this is a really good situation, although I doubt that the sky will fall; corporations already find ways to shovel about as much money as they might like at candidates.  However, I think that it's just a consequence of two root problems -- the first being the great inequality of wealth (and therefore power) in our society, being nearly all concentrated in a rich elite; the second being the lack of serious and/or compulsory public financing for campaigns, so that wealth is usually a prerequisite to being elected.