Not to mention that if "shall not be infringed" and "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" are and indication they'd find a way to ignore it when they do abridge the freedom of the press.
I'm saying this couldn't work without explicitly including restrictions on the freedom of the press, since "the press" is the very vehicle by which money gets turned into political influence. Unless this amendment includes something akin to the fairness doctrine I can't see how it could possibly have the effect you are looking for.
Perhaps corporations are not people, however "the press" is made of corporations. If there is to be no restriction on the press then what is to stop any corporate entity from advancing the cause of their politics as a member of the so-called press?
> Don't be afraid of change. If something isn't working; we should fix it.
Furthermore, this is a binary line of thinking that isn't even fit for a children's book. The world is not split between those that want change, and those that are afraid of change. It is very much possible for intelligent adults to consider the details of what is being prescribed and conclude that "that sounds at least as bad or possibly worse than the status quo."
You're listing one possibly problem when this addresses dozens of issues. Removing corporate money from law making will make it was easier to address these issues in the future, with sensible legislation.
By all means, extrapolate your position. The press is corporate, but every story I've ever seen has a byline. That means the actual speech is from a person.
thanks pnutjam