I think I may actually be in support of this decision in the interest of consistency. If we start from the assumption of corporate personhood, then they get free speech rights as well. As far as I can see, all that has actually happened is, now you can see "INTERNETS NEED TO BE FREE NOT NEUTRAL! VOTE FOR X! (tiny font: This ad was sponsored by the AT&T)" as opposed to "INTERNETS NEED TO BE FREE NOT NEUTRAL! VOTE FOR X! (tiny font: This ad is sponsored by People for the free Internet society pact group). It says that "all corporations can openly support candidates" as opposed to "most corporations can indirectly buy candidates through lobbyists and only a few like fox and msnbc can openly (for sufficiently twisted, legalese-ass-covered definitions of open) support candidates".

What I don't support is the double standard when it comes to duties. Corporations must either have the same duties and liabilities of a citizen (which weird.. citizens can't merge.. citizen's can't simply pass off responsibility). Or the idea of corporate personhood itself should be revoked. I would go for revoking personhood and only leaving the original purpose of corporations -- limited liability. As I see it.. limited liability? limited rights.