Admittedly, my inner Wittgenstein would like to play language games to show why Justice Kennedy's statement that "Corporations have knowledge" is an entirely nonsensical existential condition as a matter of pure logic. But, for the time being, I think I'll stick to more prosaic matters - the tax implications of granting corporations a Constitutional right to make campaign contributions.
The tax implications are potentially huge and would in effect constitute a federal subsidy for corporate speech. Constituting a cost of doing business, corporations - unlike individuals - will be able to deduct campaign contributions. Of course, the utter retard genius of this outcome was unaddressed by the arguments before the Supreme Court.
First, there's the initial matter of whether a compelling interest justifies discriminating against individual speech by providing tax subsidies to commercial speech. Then, there's the practical consideration of why would a small business owner ever consider making a campaign contribution in her individual capacity?
The silver lining in all of this being that because of the number of small business owners vastly outnumbers the amount of massive corporations, this tax consequence will uniquely benefit them.