That’s really what’s going on here. Under current law, corporations face a bunch of restrictions on participating in elections. They can’t donate money to campaigns. (That’s relatively unimportant, IMHO — who really cares if a multi-billion dollar multinational donates $2,300 to a multi-million dollar presidential campaign?) And they can’t dip into the corporate treasury (where most of the money resides) to try to persuade people to vote a particular way either (via so-called “independent expenditures”) — they have to set up a PAC (also known as a Separate Segregated Fund) to do that. That’s the rule that is likely to change this fall. And if/when it does, that’s where the big money — the carpet-bombing of the airwaves, among other things — wants to go.
Which leads one to ask: for purposes of campaign finance regulation, does it make sense to treat corporations the same as natural persons? After all, the basis for what the Supreme Court is likely to do this fall is that corporations are just like people, and therefore they should be allowed to spend as much of “their own money” persuading people how to vote as anyone else.