I think what you are grasping for (but have forgotten) is the LIMITED LIABILITY doctrine that protects some but not all OWNERS of corporations, or stock in corporations, from direct liability for accidents, crimes, injuries, etc. committed by officers, employees, etc. of the corporations.
Even if you got rid of corporations you'd still hve the issue of group liability and that would run right up against the Constitutional doctrine of indiidual responsibility for one's own acts.
The courts in the late 1800s were faced with a multitude of corporate schemes and an equally large multitude of slick lawyers who wanted to get around those schemes and go after owners, so the courts addressed the issue by first separating capital responsibility from personal responsibility.
Nothing more than that. An obvious, common sense, easily understood concept ~ which was ancient!
Later limitations on free speech took place when incumbents realized that incumbency, by itself, virtually insured thei re-elections IF they could deprive their unelected opponents of the funds necessary to run a campaign.
I don’t disagree with anything you say, but I think you miss my point. Consider: in-house corporate lawyers have the job of protecting the “corporation”, not officers, employees, directors or even shareholders. They are charged with protecting the entity called the “corporation”. The “corporation” is in fact distinct from its employees/officers/directors/shareholders. It goes beyond the limitation of liability aspect. Nothing prevents the members from speaking in their own names, even as a collective. But the corporation ITSELF is nothing but a state-cretaed entity, not a group of people. I think its clear that the framers envisioned “churches”, as a collection of people, as having rights. I don’t think its as clear in the case of state-created “corporations” ... and I think this is the only relevant question. The practicality or policy aspects should not be relevant to Constitutional interpretation.
Corporations are not groups. In the eyes of the law, a corporation is a single "person." The corporation may be owned by a single shareholder or many shareholders; and the ownership may be represented by a single share of stock or multiple shares of stock. But the corporation itself is a single "person." The real question then is whether a corporation was a "person" in the eyes of the law at the time of the enactment of the Bill of Rights and if so, whether the drafters of the Bill of Rights intended the corporate person to enjoy freedom of speech under the First Amendment. .
So, dogs never got a chance to find out if you were palatable?
When you speak here, is it as a lawyer or as a concerned citizen?
It doesn't have to be "more than that" - the "separation of capital responsibility from personal responsibility" is the root of virtually all corruption.
This is also an obvious, common sense, easily understood concept ~ which is ancient!