You may want to do a little research on the actual decision. A large part of it involved not restricting free speech among organizations/associations, and that giving money to a campaign in democracy was a part of free speech. (This is where the whole "organizations are people too" thing came from). Sounds okay, but the problem is YOUR donations given to a candidate can't touch what a corporation like a large pharmaceutical company, or say, a large bank, can give. Money in politics = power over politians. That's why you have candidates with voting records in favor of shutting down congressional investigations into shady opiod distribution and over-eager lending. Follow the money. The only thing worse than the "swampy" money in politics is when someone appoints former leaders of said swampy companies for cabinet postions. But the people who fell for the "drain the swamp" BS stopped paying attention after election night.