We therefore have recognized that "the compelling governmental interest in preventing corruption support[s] the restriction of the influence of political war chests funneled through the corporate form."  The Chamber argues that this concern about corporate domination of the political process is insufficient to justify a restriction on independent expenditures. Although this Court has distinguished these expenditures from direct contributions in the context of federal laws regulating individual donors, it has also recognized that a legislature might demonstrate a danger of real or apparent corruption posed by such expenditures when made by corporations to influence candidate elections. Regardless of whether this danger of "financial quid pro quo" corruption may be sufficient to justify a restriction on independent expenditures, Michigan's regulation aims at a different type of corruption in the political arena: the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas. The Act does not attempt "to equalize the relative influence of speakers on elections," post, at 705 (KENNEDY, J., dissenting); see also post, at 684 (SCALIA, J., dissenting); rather, it ensures that expenditures reflect actual public support for the political ideas espoused by corporations. We emphasize that the mere fact that corporations may accumulate large amounts of wealth is not the justification for Section 54; rather, the unique state-conferred corporate structure that facilitates the amassing of large treasuries warrants the limit on independent expenditures. Corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections when it is deployed in the form of independent expenditures, just as it can when it assumes the guise of political contributions. We therefore hold that the State has articulated a sufficiently compelling rationale to support its restriction on independent expenditures by corporations.

Should it matter how individuals decide to organize their operations if they want to exercise their freedom of speech?

as noted above, the corporate form is a benefit granted by the state, creating a legal fiction of a "person". this form provides several benefits (easier acquisition of capital, the corporate "veil", etc) not available to individuals. as such, the state also has the right to put restrictions on the actions it can legally take; no one is forced to incorporate, it's a privilage. you needn't do so to engage in business.

in the case of "for profit" corps, investment is made for the purpose of (hopefully) making a profit, not because the investors like the politics of the entity.

this is far different from saying "i want this person elected":

"I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work"

We would never stand for letting the government censor speech before the fact or the Pentagon Papers would never have seen the light of day.  But we allow restrictions on political speech because it may lead to a corrupt politician?  Does anyone think our politicians are more pure after M/F? Like Rangel?

Should it matter how individuals decide to organize their operations if they want to exercise their freedom of speech?  Do we want the government telling us certain corporations are okay because they are in the news business but others are not? Can the NRA run a radio show and qualify like GE?