It is imperative that the Judicial Branch be objective. It must be asked, "how could the Court justify the Citizens decision? " The Court recognizes that a corporation is "a legal fiction that exists only in contemplation of law." Doesn't that already mean that it is "fictional" hence cannot be a "person". Then, to justify the decision on the basis that this "fiction" has the right to "free speech" which is the right of every real "person"; isn't that a "fictional scenario" twice removed from anything real? Hey, its alright to create a 'legal fiction' for economic purposes, but to give it the Constitutional right of a real person; to allow a second fiction to ride piggy-back on the first fiction? The real reason behind the decision seems to be the influence of money within our political structure. To be sure, money is important but one cannot ignore the fact that its an empty value. Possesion of lots of money does not change a human being into anything superior or different than any other human being, other than he or she has more possessions and,of course, more influence. Everybody knows that money 'drives' elections. If rich corporations, legal fictions to be sure, can contribute to their favorite candidate, it won't be long before corporations own the top of government. Money and corporations are already very influencial. Add to that the fact that only the rich can campaign and what do we have; a good democratic government? Hell no! A government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%. What happens to you and I at the bottom of triadic government? (Don't think about that; it can't be too nice.)A legal fiction riding piggy-back on another fiction that gets control of the top of government can only lead to a fictional government. A fictional government is not a real government. "Citizens" cannot stand. Only real people have a voice in their government. Only real people can petition their government for "redress of grievances." That was established, effective Dec.15,1791.