While granting corporations and unions the ability to run campaign commercials and yet at the same time restrict direct contributions seems to be a bit of stretch if you are using Free Speech as a justification for doing so. Why? because if it is protected Free Speech then there should be NO LIMITS placed on them at all in terms of direct contributions, because the same argument applies.
"The end of democracy, and the defeat of the American revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." Thomas Jefferson
I could not disagree more with the assertion that companies and unions are entitled to free speech when it comes to elections. To do so supposes that these companies and these unions are on equal footing with the individual under the constitution which they clearly are not. It has always been my humble opnion that if one does not have any constitutional ability to vote in an election or determine it's outcome by doing so, then one should NOT have the ability to contribute to it. However, that being said from a pure commercial view these companies depending on where they spend their money if it is not a Govt. regulated commercial airwave, then a good case can be made that they are entitled to do so regardless of content.
Exactly. A corporation or union can give what they want. Yet our "free speech" is limited to 2300.00 dollars. Why does this apply only to them? Why can we not exerise our "free speech" ann give as much as we want?