> people don't lose fundamental rights by virtue of creating a corporation to exercise those rights
No. That is even more manipulative way to put it. No one was "loosing fundamental rights", that part is a lie. What ruling did was to make corruption legal, if you create a corporation by virtue of corporate personhood.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. The people involved in Citizens United could have done exactly what they did as individuals with some contractual money sharing agreements, and both sides of the case acknowledged that. Signing one little extra piece of paper makes the whole thing illegal corruption?
The actual case of Citizens United had exceptionally bad facts for the camp that thinks it's a bad ruling. The DNC should never have pushed it as far as they did, because it came right back at them like a ton of bricks.
In contrast, bringing it back to this case, communication over the internet involves many different business agreements to get internet service, rent computing, etc. Those relationships are within the US's power to regulate and legislate, especially when they cross its borders.
No. That is even more manipulative way to put it. No one was "loosing fundamental rights", that part is a lie. What ruling did was to make corruption legal, if you create a corporation by virtue of corporate personhood.