" In short, when it comes to the First Amendment, greater issues are at stake beyond the immediate interests of the corporations in question. There must be a compelling state interest to limit freedom of expression. Why doesn't it make a difference whether the corporate speech is about matters that materially affect its business interests?

It is not the state's place to regulate when and if First Amendment rights apply in certain areas. Rather: "Freedom of discussion, if it would fulfill its historic function in this nation, must embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period.... The inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual." The right to express one's political views was held to be particularly important, and the individual's right to do so would not have been called into question, if the appellants were not business corporations. "Speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government."

What is the constitutional standard used to determine whether government regulation of political speech is permissible?

Only if the democratic process as a whole is endangered, which the state could not prove, "thereby denigrating rather than serving First Amendment interests," can such regulations be permitted

However, the court noted that "there has been no showing that the relative voice of corporations has been overwhelming or even significant in influencing referenda in Massachusetts or that there has been any threat to the confidence of the citizenry in government"
What is Rehnquist's fundamental argument?

Although for certain purposes, corporations are treated like persons, they are in no way natural persons, and in 1906 the court decided the liberty protected by that Amendment "is the liberty of natural, not artificial persons." Rehnquist believed that the original decision was correct, that "when a State creates a corporation with the power to acquire and utilize property, it necessarily and implicitly guarantees that the corporation will not be deprived of that property absent due process" but these property rights did not mean that corporations had First Amendment rights to express political views about issues that had nothing to do with profitability.