Here's my submission:

I fear the functional effects of the ruling. First, I believe the anti-distortion interest identified by the Court justified the FCRA, which restricted the ability of organizations to advertise directly for candidates through independent expenditures around election times. I am persuaded by Stevens that the FCRA did not restrict the free speech of any natural person. Secondly, products sold by corporations are now endowed with newly political significance. Some money from my purchases goes to corporate treasuries, which can now fund advertising supporting candidates in elections. Disclaimer and disclosure protections are inadequate to prevent consumer confusion resulting from this.

Also, here are my case notes. Nate, if you slap yours on the same page this one won't get any more cluttered.

http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/twiki/bin/view/LawContempSoc/CitizensUnitedCaseNotes

-- AndrewCascini - 05 Feb 2010