More on SCOTUS decision regarding campaign finance laws

There's a lot of discussion regarding Citizens United V. Federal Election
Commission (link to SCOTUS decision), discussion by people are alternately smart, ideologically-blinded by rage, bewitched, bothered, and bemildred.

So, just two quick observations based on a quick read of the decision itself (all 183 pages), a good summary on the Wall Street Journal site, Court Rolls Back Campaign Spending Limits - WSJ.com, and some other sources.

1. On the same day that the Supreme Court reversed a number of decisions with regard to the regulation of corporate speech, Secretary of State Clinton made a speech on Internet freedom at the Newseum, in which she said,
   
   

   Countries that censor news and information must recognize that from an economic standpoint, there is no distinction between censoring political speech and commercial speech. If businesses in your nations are denied access to either type of information, it will inevitably impact on growth. -- Remarks on Internet Freedom
   

   Sounds a lot like the rationale used by the Supreme Court majority in striking down campaign spending limits.
   The issue of corporate personhood is a subtext in the dissent and in some of the deliberations; the Court pretty much affirmed that corporations are people with regard to First Amendment rights.
   
   
2. During his confirmation hearings, now-Chief Justice John Roberts made certain that the Senate Judiciary Committee knew that he knew what stare decisis meant and that it was a key principle in judicial review.
   Except, as we've seen in this case, where it isn't so important.