Since Citizens United, there has been a public controversy over the protections of commercial speech versus individual speech.
The limit of individual speech is basically that one cannot incite violence against another or others or incite a riot or riotous behavior. The basic idea is that an individual should not do harm against another or others, and speech aimed to do physical harm is rightfully regulated.
It has been said that corporate speech can be more heavily regulated. On its face, that may appear to be true. However, usually the commercial speech that is prohibited has been deemed harmful to others. For example, the FCC prohibits curse words and nudity from public broadcast so as not to subject children to such things, the premise being exposure to such things is harmful to children.
It would appear, then, the justification of regulating commercial speech and individual speech is the same. The difference might be said is the potential impact of commercial speech versus individual speech.
And so, that begs the question, why ought the government be allowed to regulate commercial political speech moreso than individual political speech? Corporations are nothing more than a collection of persons who own and operate a concern. How can one differentiate a collection of persons and an individual? Even if one can differentiate, what justifies that differentiation with regard to regulating political speech?
And, before we get into rote responses that money in politics is bad, I would state at the outset that such a sentiment is merely conclusory. I do not accept as axiomatic that money in politics is bad. What specifically about money in politics is bad?
