re: #334 Aceofwhat?

But isn’t the Tillman act a ban on corporate contributions to candidates? How is that relevant to a ban on corporate speech that does not entail a direct donation to a candidate, except through inventiveness on Justice Stevens’ part?

(asking honestly)

Well, and this is my opinion here, I haven’t read the case law on this. But I would assume that it’s because fundamentally there is little difference.

Whats the big difference between a corporation giving $50,000 to a candidate to spend on election advertising, or that corporation spending $50,000 on ads that explicitly advocate for that candidate to be elected?
Fundamentally there isn’t a difference. It’s money being spent by a corporation to explicitly influence a given election in a specific candidates favor.