So, given the discussion in my post the other day about the Supreme Court's decision to overturn McCain/Feingold, am I right in stating that:
1. The law defines some particular associations of people as too dangerous or unworthy to have the right to spend money to expound their political ideas?
2. Those associations are Corporations, both profit and non-profit, and Unions, but does NOT include media corporations?
3. Political speech, if it is paid for by said associations, in any way, shape, or form, regardless of medium, even if the association was founded to promulgate that speech, is thus illegal and the individual members of the association subject to prosecution? Thus, if someone gave a speech on the street, and the soapbox was bought or donated by the association, the association and individuals therein subject to prosecution?
4. The Supreme Court decided, 5-4, that this was unconstitutional?
5. That either the 5 members, or the 4 members, or both were motivated by partisan bias?
If the above points are a correct encapsulation of the issue, can anyone tell me what the core value of either side is that supports such a disparate reading of First Amendment Rights?