But BCRA only applied to corporations.
But Buckley didn’t say “except for corporations.”
Buckley established the link between money and speech.
The status of a speaker was already irrellevant to whether speech is protected (though if you asked me for cases, I’d have to go look, so don’t ask me).
There already are slight limits on speech and campaigning. In California, on election day, you’re not allowed to carry campaign materials (e.g., wear a “Vote Democratic” t-shirt" or make political speeches, within a certain radius of the voting site. I can stand X yards away with my placards, but no closer.
In a hyper-strict interpretation, this law should be struck down, as it restricts speech. But somehow it never has been.
Is this a real problem to anyone? Are there any major advocacy groups arguing against this law?
Is it a principle that could be “slippery sloped” to a more general prohibition on campaign speech?
(I like the law as it is, as it guarantees me a hassle-free voting experience. I don’t have to shove through barricades of advocates to get to the polling place. But I don’t want it expanded or generalized.)
So now we have a corporation (Apple) asserting constitutional rights, including the right to freedom of speech, in a fight with the government.
And I’m guessing many of the same people who go around saying corporations have no rights (which would mean they can’t even mount a legal defense against the government in the first place) are now cheering Apple for standing up for privacy.
I just asked Linus this question, since he said almost exactly the same thing in another thread: Who on earth are all these people who assert that corporations have no rights?
You’ve never heard the “corporations aren’t people” refrain? That’s what it’s about.
It’s about asserting that corporations have no rights? Cite?
See my response on the Apple thread please.
Cheesus, my humble apologies for confusing you and Linus. I can only blame the lack of caffeine.
I am deeply offended! 
I do that all the time, so no big deal.