And what message could they possibly need free speech for that 1, isn't lying about their products, or 2, has nothing to do with what their business is doing?
Well in the case of Citizens United, a non-profit organization wanted to make a documentary with a negative portrayal of Hillary Clinton. However, according to previous election laws, they were not allowed to do so during election season. After the decision was made in their favour, they were free to put aforementioned film on cable TV.
Before the ruling, corporations/nonprofits/unions/etc were just as free to spend money influencing elections, they just had to do it through those trusty news corporations.
I would really, really like you to point out where I "ignored that before".
You have said, every single time in reference the ruling, that it effects "Corporations". Every attack on my argument is based on this only applying to corporations. Case in point:
And what message could they possibly need free speech for that 1, isn't lying about their products, or 2, has nothing to do with what their business is doing?
-Non profits do not make products
-Unions do not make products (unless you count higher union wages as a product which is some weird wording)
-Non profits are not businesses
-Unions are businesses, but that question basically answers itself so I highly doubt you were applying it in that sense
Even the ACLU was pretty much in favour of this one, just sayin'.
Taking the postulate "organizations aren't people, thus don't have rights associated with people" to its logical conclusion, does not mean they can't do anything at all, or be blamed for things. It just means the laws relating to them can be extremely arbitrary. So basically, what we have now, only Congress/etc could make whatever the hell law they wanted instead of stumbling around with this half personhood silliness. Laws would be argued as to their practicality* rather than constitutionality.
*Well obviously they wouldn't be practical, because practicality is the last thing on a representative's mind, long behind appeasing their constituents. But that's beside the point.
To say that organizations are people is rather silly, but the fact of the matter is that the First Amendment covers organizations just as much as individuals. Lets look at the 1st Amendment again, in whole:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Notice how it says "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW... ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH". That's fairly unambiguous language.
Now answer me this: which is more practical, having the FEC decide who can have freedom of speech under what circumstances, or simply considering speech from all (domestic, obviously) sources to be covered under the 1st Amendment?