1. Most people objecting to this have a problem with large corporations effecting elections -- this ruling had nothing to do with that. They could easily put money in PACs to buy adverting. All McCain-Feingold did was limit the ability of small groups of people and small companies to do the same thing through mountains of red tape.
2. Companies do not have to seek profit at all costs, public corporations have a responsibility to shareholders, but even then there is great leeway in what they're allowed to do.
1. I don't care what most people object to. I was explaining why the line of reasoning: treating companies as people, is wrong. Sure they could put money into PACs, they can bribe too. Doesn't mean it's right, certainly doesn't mean we have to tolerate it.
Companies do not share the same needs as a human citizen. Companies, as individual entities, do NOT share the same interests as a human citizen. Therefore companies cannot be given the same right to serve or lobby the people's interests.
Companies accrue their powers from means unrelated to potential agendas they push. Which means the voice of their agendas can potentially be inflated.
Secondly even if their agendas are directly related to how they get their power, then their agenda is directly related to corporate interest, because they get their power from profit.
2. Companies do not have to seek profit at all costs, public corporations have a responsibility to shareholders, but even then there is great leeway in what they're allowed to do.