Oh dear, I think I came off as saying more than I intended to... let's try this again, the people directing corporate resources are people and I think people should be able to spend to their heart's content. That was all I really wanted to get across.
Basically, I'm speaking from the standpoint of political philosophy, not law. Whether corporations are considered legal people or not is not on my list of concerns. Whether something is currently illegal or not is not on my list of concerns. I'm sure there's issues with anonymity and other stuff, but the relevant point I wished to get across is that I don't necessarily believe that "corporations shouldn't donate" or "donations should be limited". Those are the only two notions I was thinking of when making the original post.
For some perspective, I legitimately don't believe money plays very large a role in determining the winner. Not saying it doesn't help, but other factors such as incumbency, candidate record, party identification, etc. influence elections as well and even moreso. I figure most people vote the party line or some other line. Like I copy a "voter guide" made by some local group with similar views and don't even bother thinking. They did the research and they have similar objectives. What more could I need? I'm accustomed to relying on people more knowledgeable on the details that actually go into determining the appropriate policy. As such, the money issue isn't an issue for me. Beyond that, most people are very ingrained in their views and wary of taking political ads at face value. There's a certain level of silliness in thinking everyone except you is easily swayed to vote based on what candidate has the most money spent on their campaign.
In any case, I stand by the principle that people - whether individually or through organizations such as corporations, unions, or groups like the NRA (would that be a normal PAC?) - should be able to spend to their heart's content.
If anything, I'm less trying to convince anyone of anything that to introduce the notion that it's silly to instantly interpret something as "moving backwards" when others can interpret it as "moving forwards in a different direction". I mean there's that whole liberalism v. democracy thing that's far from settled.
