So, Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts:
If money is fully speech, corporations have full personhood and all associated rights therein, why is it not entirely unconstitutional to require corporations’ “free speech” be disclosed (but of course—only when it applies to political spending)?
Clarence Thomas at least has the guts to follow your argument to its logical conclusion — that forced disclosure would be facially unconstitutional if the entire foundation of your argument was actually true.
It sure is a problem when public outrage would reveal how baseless and transparently ideological the most basic of your arguments are, isn’t it? As always with regard to Supreme Court decisions, “activist judges” are totally OKIYAR1.
P.S.: Does this mean that shareholders should now be more accurately called slaveowners?