1) Corporations are not a collection of people however. They are legally a seperate entity from their members - this gives them certain protections but also certain restrictions. They simply are not legally at all the same as something like the ACLU.

2) Like almost all freedoms it is and should be restricted at the point where it damages other freedoms. This is evident in libel, slander laws for example and also not legal to say things that are likely to cause harm (eg. falsely shout fire in a public theatre). In this case too much free speech destroys political freedom - it is not possible to have free and fair elections when an overwhelming media campaign is launched.

Also your link (the freakonomics one) only contains one actual researcher as far as I can see and his research is contradicted by

http://www.uky.edu/~clthyn2/PS671/Gerber_1998APSR.pdf

http://www.kenbenoit.net/pdfs/Jacobson1978.pdf

Which also contradict each other (but both say that election spending does increase votes) but both recommend spending caps in elections.

3) So you don't think that the corporate lobbying groups huge pockets are influencing these bills at all? I can't prove that there would be much less support in congress for the bills without  their money - but I'm pretty confident that it would be the case.

Edit: Basically there are two reasons I oppose corporations being able to put huge money into political campaigns.

1. It encourages corruption.

2. It causes an election to no longer be fair.

I'm having a hard time imagining the OP is serious.

1. Look at U.S. debt and tax rates when "Nazi Germany was a thorn in [our] side." Taxes were far higher than they are now, and deficits were soaring.

2. We "borrow" very little money from China, amounting to no more than what they spend on U.S. bonds.  They hold a fairly small portion of our overall debt.

3. Economically, we didn't exceed the British Empire in might until WWII, when the government started effectively using our nation's vast resources to significantly improve our infrastructure through taxation.  And we sank deep into debt.

4. I can only imagine what our nation would look like had we never exceeded 1% in taxes. No highways, no national parks, no public works programs, no Department of Transportation, etc. etc. etc.

I'm sure American businesses would be doing great without the comprehensive system of interstates they rely on to transport their goods.

When the Senate was appointed by the States, the senators had a very different incentives. Namely, they had to keep the state legislators happy. Now, they have the electorate happy, like the House. And, when you combine that with the 16th amendment, that just means giving people as much stuff as possible, and the House/Senate have very similar goals, which makes legislation much more likely to pass, making it easier for Government to grow.

I believe they prefer the term Asian-Americans.

1) No, they're still groups of people... see.... the supreme court.  Even the disenters in the court agreed to this fact.

2)  My link had numererous experts and research in it....

3)  Bills?  The question was elections.  Sure lobbying effects bills.  So does calling your congressmen and wiring him a letter, so does, pretty much anything everywhere.  Bringing in an expert to talk about why they think SOPA is a good idea of course sways congressmen.  No reason congressmen shouldn't be able to talk to experts and people in the fields they plan to effect though.  A campaign of regular voters however, holds more power then a coroporate lobby, as shown by those bills you mentioned that get defeated whenever the public pays attention.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/14/why-super-pacs-are-good-for-democracy - why super pacs are good for democracy

1) Then they should lose their privileges such as limited liability that they gain from being seperated from their members.

2) I read through it, was pretty tired though and may have missed some stuff. Mostly it seemed to be from people who were 'experts' but not researchers.

3) Yes but the money now allows people to fund the election of sympathetic legislators. Also as legislators do remember who helped fund them, there will certainly be a bit of 'quid pro quo' going on with the corporations in the future.

Just on the topic of free speech for corporations ...

Corporations should be entitled to the same protections under freedom of speech as individuals are; but I don't believe that individuals or corporations are necessarily entitled to anonymous speech. Essentially, if a company wants to make a political stand they should be able to but they shouldn't be able to create a dummy organization called "Americans for Freedom" to hide their involvement in the campaign.

1) The ACLU is a limited liability company too...

2) They had a few researcherse there, espiecally the last guy.

3) Not really..   If I plan to go into office and lower the buisness tax, and companies fund my campaign, and then I lower the buisness tax... is that Quid Pro Quo?

No.  Quid pro Quo assumes that an action is taken that would not otherwise be taken without the orginal action.   IE, if i plan to go into office to raise the buisness tax, i get funding from companies and instead lower it.   THAT is quid pro quo.

As it is, there is enough lobby on all sides that one doesn't need to compromise their positions to get elected.

Compromising of positions tends to happen instead to make yourself viable to the electorate.

That i agree with.  I think the concurrence in citizens united was better.