Corporations are not people and therefore have no right to political speech.
I'd even suggest they have no rights at all. The people within them have rights, but those are entirely separate, since the corp itself has no rights.
Doesn't matter, if they couldn't virtue signal from their corporate account it will just go through the ceo's handle who just has a lot to say outside of business hours and has "CEO of United Airlines" in his bio.
The context for that supreme court opinion was whether or not citizens are allowed to organise as a corporation in order to excercise free speech. Such as making a film about a politician or printing promotional materials. Some projects are too large and risky to take on as a sole trader.
Incidentally, I don't think they ever ruled that citizens united was a person (that was the Clinton News Network spin), they ruled that the people running it did not lose their first amendment rights simply because they were excercising them through a corporate structure.
Actually according FINRA everything from trusts, insurance companies, and in between is considered a legal "person". The only ones who are not are ones who have no legal authority to make decisions.
(post is archived)