All best!
Sushil

[...]I am now not sure where you are getting your info, however good topic.[...]…

“That speech is called advertising and advertising does get restricted.” Commercial advertising gets restricted, yes, subject to intermediate scrutiny. Political advertising, conversely, is subject to far fewer judicial/legal restraints. As a general rule, restrictions on political speech, regardless of the “Speaker” must withstand a strict scrutiny analysis or be deemed invalid.

The case of which You are thinking is probably Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), in which the Reporter noted in the headnote to the opinion the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.” However, the headnote is not part of the Court’s opinion and thus not precedent. I think what the court was going for in Citizens United was something along these lines: People (Humans) have a right to engage in political speech generally unencumbered by the law; when They join Together in a group, They retain that right; calling that group a “corporation” does not remove that right anymore than calling it a “club”, “league”, “partnership”, “co-operative”, or “qwijibo”. However, I readily admit I am a little less versed in the logic of the Individual Justices than I would like to be.

If I may muse for a moment, I am wondering, to diminish chances of corrupting influences, should We not demand sitting Members of the congress to enact tough ethics rules prohibiting Them from accepting any political donations of any kind unless both chamber are in recess? Admittedly, such a restriction won’t do much for so-called “outside expenditures”, though. To diminish the influence of that class of funds, We would probably need to increase the size of the House and/or the Senate. Hmm, come to think of it, such a move might be good in general. I often hear People complain how Members of the congress do not “listen to Their Constituents”. More Members, at least in the House, would make districts smaller and increase communication efficiency. LOL, why do I have this feeling some Mathematician somewhere has already crafted an equation for the ideal number of Representatives and wrote it down in a paper Nobody has read?