SCOTUS overturns 100 years of speech law

[Frag]

Here some questions though. If Congress can regulate corporations, tax corporations, and bail them out, shouldn't corporations have 1st amendment rights to address grievances against the government.

Because corporations aren't people, they're a network for business(es). Secondly, as my previous point doesn't quite line up with U.S's laws, resources aren't equal, nor should the be, but the difference between a corp. and personal resources, as well as laws governing such, are so large that even Warren Buffet can't influence an election in kind now via money (and disenfranchisement does carry legal weight). Lastly, there's consensus of published information on what happens on the corrupting influence on large amounts of money in politics.

2nd, if ABC, NBC, CBS (TV) get 1st amendment speech rights, Gannet Media Corporation (Newspapers) get 1st amendment speech rights, Unions have 1st amendment rights, and book publishing companies have 1st amendment rights why wouldn't any other incorporation get speech rights? What is it about incorporation that suddenly strips one of their protection by the bill of rights?

Bolding mine. Up until this decision (and I believe this still isn't resolved) Unions had the same restrictions as corporations. Network's 1st amendment right, to the best of my knowledge, applies to their employees and did not permit them to run electoral campaign ads (nor would they and keep any shred of creditability they attempt to save).

3rd, if congress had nothing to sell, corporations and special interests would have nothing to buy. People with money can buy government access, because Senators and Representatives are willing to sell them access. Should we be blaming the ones doing the buying, or the ones doing the selling?

Both. As our politics are executed by human beings with all the emotions that come with that condition, even a pure politician would have a beholden feeling to anyone that places them in power, and the more of an impact that entity makes (real or imagined) the stronger the emotion is felt.

4th, due to 527 corporations, McCain/Feingold is bypassed anyway. The rich finance the 527 organization, who then in the name of a special interest group non-profit 501c3 corporation funds advertising against political positions held by their opponents. Hence the lawsuit against, "Hillary: The Movie" in the first place.

Non-profit, this is a matter of resources. Also, 527's are U.S. entities.

5th, what is the difference between "Hillary: The movie" available on demand from a website, and "Hilary: The book" available on demand on Kindle from Amazon? Wouldn't the internet be considered "press", and shouldn't media on the internet be protected? Just because at the time of the framers, "press" meant crushing ink onto paper, doesn't mean that it is how we think of "the press" today. Isn't Daily Kos, or Huffinton Post considered "the press" in constitutional terms. In that regard, why shouldn't the Lurker Lounge forum be protected free speech?

Dart playing? Laws, specifically electioneering communications, outdated as they may be.

Cheers,
~Frag :(