Maggie Tennis '14 conflates two issues: that political donations are a form of free speech and that corporations have "personhood" and are protected by the Constitution. These do not necessarily coexist.
When considering individual contributions, Tennis first argues that money directly donated to campaigns influences platforms. But is this true? Ultimately, campaign platforms must be put to a vote. Because Romney's campaign was attacked as being influenced by the wealthy, the recent election speaks for itself. But even if we accept this as fact so what? There are many individuals who can influence campaign platforms. Academics, activists, celebrities and the media all have that power. Unions' positions influenced the Democratic Party. Is this not a "special interest" with which Tennis is so concerned? Paul Krugman can influence the Democratic Party. Does this represent "all the people" with whom Tennis is so fixated? Why is money specifically targeted? The ability to influence political platforms is not a reason in and of itself to limit said influence.
Tennis subsequently argues that in a political campaign, anyone can wage influential power with words. Of course, the fact that speech can take a non-monetary form does not preclude individual spending on campaigns and advertisements. They are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore her argument rests on the idea that all people have equal ability to sway voters. This is simply false. It is easier for a Kennedy to influence votes than your average Joe. A Harvard professor has more political clout than your average high school teacher. And a journalist can control votes possibly more than anyone else. What is important is that this does not preclude the average person from influencing voters, just like money. Why money spent on advertisements is any different from a Kennedy, a Harvard professor or a journalist taking advantage of his or her clout is unclear.
It is perhaps true that corporations do not have "personhood" and therefore are not protected by the Constitution. This has no bearing, though, on whether individual contributions of money should be considered protected free speech. To the latter point, Tennis has made no convincing argument.
