I recall listening to the arguments where one of the justices said something like 'So, if there was a book that had nothing to do with politics, and on the last page it said and that's why you should vote for candidate X , would it be the governments position that the law allows you to stop publication?'This is literally the exact opposite of what the First Amendment was intended to do. It was certainly not intended to protect porn, which it does. It was intended specifically to protect political speech against shit like the seditious libel laws on Cuck Island (which John Adams immediately signed into law when he was elected).
And the government responded along the lines of 'Um....Well...I'm sure we would never do something like that, but yes."
And I thought "Well that's a dead law".
I hate the meme that Citizens United was about corporations being people, or money equaling speech.
OTOH if the government had won, it would be legal for the FEC (Trump) to shut down CNN, MSNBC ect.