Bryan, upon further reading of the opinion, it's important to note that the law struck down by Citizens United did not prohibit spending money. It prohibited “communications” which were meant to advocate a particular issue or candidate. The money doesn't factor in.

Also, as I think I've obliquely mentioned before, the First Amendment, by its terms, doesn't protect speakers, it protects speech: “The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected.” Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U. S. 1, 8 (1986)

Yes, from a legal perspective, and yes, money spent to spread a message is protected speech. (This case does NOT allow for direct contributions to candidates)

>Do you think this won't have amazingly big implications for elections in the future, and that personal campaign donations will never be able to stand up to the money spent by corporations?

No, because big corporate money already finds its way into the political discourse. This case, in my view, most helps those who cannot afford to hire election-law specialists to determine whether their planned political statements might run afoul of the government's approval and therefore subject them to potential criminal penalties. Frankly, campaign finance laws benefit the wealthy, the powerful, and the incumbents, by making it harder for challengers to raise money, and harder for the less powerful to engage in collective action. I never understood why liberals tolerated this immense government scheme to restrict all but pre-approved political speech.

>Do you think that when a board of directors, or a CEO, decides to spend the corporation's money toward a political cause, that every single employee of the corporation would support that decision?

No. I don't think that's relevant. It's not the employees' money to decide how to spend, unless they're shareholders.

But do you agree that corporations are a kind of person, and that money is a form of speech? Do you think this won't have amazingly big implications for elections in the future, and that personal campaign donations will never be able to stand up to the money spent by corporations?

Do you think that when a board of directors, or a CEO, decides to spend the corporation's money toward a political cause, that every single employee of the corporation would support that decision?