To my mind, this decision was important for the restoration of the First Amendment rights. I think that everyone has a right to make critical notes or films concerning some election campaigns or candidates as long as this critique is true. The fact that people are united in a corporation does not mean that they should not make attempts to inform others about their opinion on the candidates. That is why I agree with the Supreme Court and I think that it was the right ruling.
To my mind, the fact that the film criticizing Hillary Clinton was made by some corporations does not mean that it should have been banned. When citizens are united in a union or company, they have enough financial support and resources to make an investigation concerning some facts and to tell the truth to other people. They can bring their opinion to the public by any means as long as it is based on solid facts. That is why this decision of the Supreme Court seems to me logical.
It is difficult to state whether this ruling is bad or good. On the one hand, it is good because it follows the law and restores the First Amendment rights. It allows the members of unions and corporations to spread their opinion. On the other hand, corporations are often seen as the embodiment of evil, and they are powerful due to their financial resources. If the heads of corporations are lawful and protect citizens’ rights, then this law is beneficial. If the information they are spreading is not true and the arguments are fabricated, then it is not good.
However, I consider that people that are united in some organizations are American citizens, too, and they have a right to influence the elections. In the U.S., corporations have the same rights as individuals do. They can pay taxes, enter contracts, borrow and loan money. Thus, they should also have a right to make any production, either films or articles, as long as they do not contain slander, according to the First Amendment rights.