Can same sex corporations get married?

So the Supreme Court finally ruled on the case of corporate campaign spending. Susan Milligan, from the Boston Globe, sums the facts up nicely in saying,

Under the ruling, corporations and unions will not be able to contribute unlimited amounts directly to a candidate, but may spend what they please on behalf of a candidate. The money must be disclosed, the court said.

Ummmmm....why? What is the reasoning behind ruling on such an easily corruptable law? Well the court didn't have a choice, directly because of an archaic and unreasonable ruling that predates the sale of the first automobile.....not a joke. In the groundbreaking 1886 case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad corporations were granted "personhood," which became a very effective tool for protecting wealthy shareholders from being responsible for nearly any legal obligations to their employees or, recently, victims. This is the essence of a LLC.

So yesterday the Supreme Court, under the legal precedent that corporations have human and civil rights as all persons do, had to rule that they are granted freedom of speech and are thus protected by the 1st amendment. I think David Kirkpatrick hits the nail on the head with his assertion that, "A lobbyist can now tell any elected official: if you vote wrong, my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election."

This new mechanism will surely destroy the small amount of chivalry that was still lingering in presidential elections, but the effect it will have on state and local elections will surely redefine the word "corruption". A few million dollars in the 2012 election will be chump change, but put that same financial resource behind your local mayoral candidate and you're in for trouble.