Obviously you are one more ignorant twit with zero concept of how our government is designed to work. Since when are the courts supposed to allow themselves to be swayed by public opinion? Your suggestion of "legislating from the bench" is pure unadulterated hogwash. The 1st Amendment states unequivocally that the right to free speech cannot be abridged. Period. SCOTUS has simply upheld that basic right.
The problem with trying to place limitations on the political rights of corporations is not all corporate entities are business entities. There are significant numbers of corporations whose purpose for being is political. In trying to control business influence in politics through money, the laws invariably also control the right of speech for organizations which were formed for the specific purpose of giving greater voice to people via their right to assemble; also found in the 1st Amendment. As such, any fault with the current situation lies not with the SCOTUS decision that says the 1st Amendment trumps campaign finance reform, but with the laws which govern corporations and allow them to be treated as single entities under the law.
In the necessity to create the legal fiction of corporate personhood, we are faced with a number of problems, not the least of which is the idea that a legal fiction has the same rights as a human being. Other problems include the ability of corporate leadership to (knowingly) make shitty decisions and be completely shielded from any negative consequences of those decisions - but that is another topic. It is a sticky problem; but no more so, and probably less so than the problems which would arise if we did not have laws which allow us to treat a corporation as a single entity.
Bottom line: the SCOTUS decision, even though it includes a number of consequences that include an enhanced ability for big money interests to directly influence government, was the correct decision. What we need to do now is visit the laws which give personhood to corporations, and find a way to rewrite them so the essential concept of single identity is retained for legal purposes, but also place a solid - and constitutional, this time - wall between corporate entity rights, and the rights of PEOPLE, either individually or collectively.
