Editor’s Note: When the editorial board discussed last week’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the result was the longest meeting and the first hung board that we’ve had so far this year. Instead of choosing one side and overruling the other, the board decided not to deprive readers of either opinion. By running dueling columns, one in support of the ruling and one against, we hope to tell both sides of the story and give readers the information to make up their own minds. Read the opposing column here.

Much has been said in the wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling, Citizens United v. FEC, and in commentary, hyperbole has been the rule. The New York Times editorial board wrote that the decision, which “strikes at the heart of democracy,” has “thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century.” And all over a little free speech.

In its decision, the Supreme Court correctly held that the First Amendment doesn’t discriminate, and that the right to free speech doesn’t depend on who is speaking. By doing so, the court struck down campaign finance laws that had limited corporations’ ability to voice opinions on elections and candidates for public office. So why the hissy fit?

Well, these days, “corporation” is a bit of a dirty word, which, for many, conjures images of monolithic office buildings, mindless drones in factories, and fat cats in slick suits sitting around mahogany tables smoking Cohiba Cuban cigars. But that’s not quite the way it works.

The purpose of incorporation is to provide an organization with a legal identity distinct from that of its owners. This can be useful for a variety of reasons, such as for limiting business liability. If a company failed in the days of old mother England, its proprietor would likely end up in debtor’s prison, unable to pay his bills. Today, through incorporation, an individual can separate his personal identity from that of his organization, meaning that if Bill’s Pizza goes under, Bill doesn’t end up rotting in the Story County Justice Center.

Sure, some corporations are huge — Walmart or General Motors, for example. But most are small, local businesses. Some are even non-profit groups. Your favorite bar is probably a corporation. So is the Iowa State Daily.

By incorporating, then, do groups give up their constitutional rights? Some have made this claim. Rights, they say, are to be held by people, not by entities, and Citizens United v. FEC bestows “personhood” on corporations by giving them the right to free speech. But this is shortsighted logic. Corporations are formed by individuals, run by individuals, and bestowed with the constitutional rights of individuals. If churchgoers form a congregation, their congregation retains the same rights to free speech and freedom of religion held by each member.

This fact is one of the reasons people form corporations in the first place. Citizens United, one of the parties in last week’s court case, was created to amplify the voices of its supporters and bring light to issues in a way that each individual member could not.

If the government halted the distribution of pro-gun advertisements paid for by the National Rifle Association, censored abortion pamphlets given out by Planned Parenthood, or deleted the contents of this column, the reaction from free speech advocates would be swift and decisive. Censorship of election-related speech should elicit the same reaction.

The groups above — including this newspaper — should be able to publish their views regardless of their structure. Once the corporate right to free speech is established, then “Congress shall make no law,” is good enough for me.

My colleagues, though, insist on debating the results of the ruling. Even if they admit its legal grounding in the Constitution, they still want to be convinced that corporations should have free speech, that the influx of corporate money won’t poison our republic. And to be fair, it isn’t Citizens United, but Walmart and Exxon Mobil that they fear. To this, I have two responses. First, business is affected by government, and therefore should have a voice in the political process. We live in an age of intervention, where the president routinely pontificates on the salaries of private individuals, and where Wall Street has been demonized for a financial crisis in which consumers, the Federal Reserve and Congress were just as complicit. Businesses should have the ability to counter such populism.

But most companies will probably leave well enough alone. From a PR perspective, voicing an opinion isn’t worth alienating half of a firm’s potential customers. Target isn’t going to put its bullseye on your congressman, and Hy-Vee’s “helpful smile in every aisle” isn’t likely to include politicians beaming out from campaign ads posted next to your Frosted Flakes. What will happen is that groups like Citizens United will be allowed to speak up on candidates and elections important to their members.

It’s a right they should have. And it’s speech Americans should have a right to hear. Just like a real market, the marketplace of ideas requires steady competition, and adding ideas to the debate will stoke the flame of democracy. That makes Citizens United v. FEC not just a win for corporations, but a win for you and me.

Kyle Peterson is a senior in journalism and mass communication, and business from a farm in North Dakota.