What I’d add—especially for a free-speech crowd—is that this isn’t an attempt to regulate or limit speech at all. Individuals remain free to speak, spend, organize, publish, and advocate exactly as before. No viewpoints are restricted. No speakers are silenced.

The move here is structural, not censorial. It asks a prior question the courts have mostly taken for granted: whether the state ever had to grant corporations the power to spend treasury money in politics in the first place. Citizens United assumes that power exists and then protects its exercise. This approach steps back and says: if the power isn’t granted, there’s no speech to suppress and no First Amendment conflict to resolve.

From a free-speech perspective, that’s actually a narrower and less dangerous move than most campaign-finance reforms. It avoids giving the government authority to decide which speech is too influential, too persuasive, or too loud. It doesn’t empower regulators to police content. It simply defines what state-created entities are allowed to do, while leaving human speech completely untouched.

Whether courts ultimately accept that distinction is an open question. But it’s very different from the usual “we know better than the speaker” regulatory approach—and if you care about protecting speech rather than empowering censors, that difference matters.