Talking more about the corporate personhood debate

So there's plenty of stuff out there, but I guess to kind of open up the discussion with us- Basically under the new ruling, corporations (acting as persons) may donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns as well as run whatever ads they want previous to an election (McCain-Feingold banned issue ads 30 days before a campaign or some such). So basically I think we've all agreed that this is the end of civilization as we know it, but going over some of the fine points I think there's some points worth considering.

First of all, the old law was arbitrarily enforced in that some corporations had unlimited access to media. Specifically, corporations like say, the New York Times, which endorsed Barack Obama before the election. The New York Times is a corporation like any other, so why would it specifically be banned? Or to take it the other way, Fox News was also exempt. So in that respect, this law is acting as a leveler.

Also worth considering is the concept that corporations merely act as a mediator of personal communication. This is to say that corporations have rights the same way property does. A baseball does not have any rights, but by merit of my right against unreasonable seizure it acts as a vessel of my rights. This isn't the argument the court is making, because it explicitly applies 14th amendment protections to corporations. So by merit of the fact that corporations are ultimately groups of people, they acquire the right to unfettered communication.

Bear in mind that limiting groups has some bad implications. If we are going to reign in the talk of say, Pepsi, what is the meaningful distinction between Pepsi and the ACLU? One could argue it was a profit motive. Any of these limits are going to be arbitrary.

I'm still down for limiting corporate forays into public speech, they point is that McCain Feingold was a problematic means of doing it.