[amberamuletuk]

Expand the analogy. What happens when someone, say the owner of the theater next door, PAYS someone to shout "fire" in their competitors establishment?

Or get selected for a jury, stand on a corner and exercise free-speech during the trial, and see what happens.

The idea that a corporation and a person have the same rights is preposterous, and the rhetorical source of the court's error.

Yes. What about the owners (shareholders) of the corporation? Are they of one voice in political expression? And don't they each individually retain the right of political expression?

What has become standard practice for corporations is to fund both opposing candidates. What political viewpoint is being expressed?