Legally, you may be right. However, this same term is used politically to give corporations the right to free speech, and hence to make campaign donations, which is ridiculous.
No, it's a different term that is spelled and pronounced the same (that is, it's a different legal sense of “person”, which courts have found corporations to qualify for for completely different reasons.)
I’m sure Donald Trump would love it if the answer was “no.”
Doesn't this same protection apply to the author of an advertisement published by a super PAC?
Someone working for a super PAC how ever isnt spending his own money.
US law had always interpreted media companies as having the freedom of the press (but not necessarily freedom of speech).
Corporations may or may not have freedom of speech. But it would be bizarre if a media company didn’t have freedom of the press.