Is coporate speech really equivalent to free speech?

     In 2008 a group called Citizen's United, a non profit, conservative media company, won a supreme court case against the FEC (Federal Election Commission). The supreme court ruled that corporations have the right to free speech and to speak about political campaigns that they support. This ruling opened what most call a floodgate. This gave corporations the ability to form SuperPAC's. A SuperPAC is a "committee" set up to help solicit donations form unions, groups, and corporations. This issue is so important because, as a Democracy, it heavily influences our ways of appointing any type of government official.
     There are many people on both sides of the spectrum for this issue. Those who support the Citizen's United group say that they are good for our Democracy. Many believe that they are increasing the number of voices in campaigns and educating voters. Also, some say that they "ensure a stronger competitive balance in elections".
     Those who oppose the CU group are afraid that corporate money will manipulate the political process and ultimately lead to the purchase of elections. Many feel that all the big corporations will support the "pro business" candidate so they can gain if they win and thus, giving them too much power in the process. Even one of the supreme court justice's said, "A democracy cannot function effectively when it's constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."

     I personally don't agree with the ruling on this case. I think that the freedom of speech was meant for people and corporations are not people, they are businesses. I think that if we are willing to give them power, why are we even voting, why don't we just let them choose the president. These corporations are taking away so much of our power that it is hard to consider ourselves a Democracy when the elections are pretty much ruled by money. I also feel that if there are going to be SuperPAC's, they shouldn't be run by former political employees.