Democracy thrives when there are major opportunities for the mass of ordinary people actively to participate through discussion and autonomous organizations, in shaping the agenda of public life, and when they are actively using these opportunities (p. 2) … It is an ideal model , which can almost never be fully achieved, but like all impossible ideals, it sets a marker (p.3) ... Under US Influence democracy is increasingly being defined as liberal democracy; an historically contingent form, not a normative last word … This is a form that stresses electoral participation as the main type of mass participation, extensive freedom for lobbying activities, which mainly means business lobbies, and a form of polity that avoides interfering with a capitalist economy. It is a model that has litltle interest in widespread citizen involvment or the role of organizations outside the business sector. Satisfaction with the unambitious democratic expectations of liberal democracy produces complacency about (end p. 3) the rise of what I call post-democracy. Under this model while elections certainly exist and can change governments, public electoral debate is a tightly controlled spectacle, managed by rival teams of professional experts in the techniques of mass persuasion, and considering a small range of issues selected by those temas. The mass of citizens plays a passive, quiescent, even apathetic part, responding only to the signals given them.. behind this spectacle of the electoral game, politics is really shaped in private by interaction between elected governments and elites that overwhelmingly represent business interests (p.4). [ Colin Crouch, Post-Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004]
It is easy to translate Crouch's normative investment in the kinds of political participation in democracy and post-democracy as two different kinds of rhetorical politics. If a democracy interest informs the choice between different rhetorical politics, then a distinction between speakers is relevant. Corporate speakers/money/speech is more dominant in post-democratic rhetorical politics while the "mass of ordinary people" are more dominant in democratic rhetorical politics. Moreover from a democratic interest one can justify a distinction between for profit and non profit corporations. The more profit driven a corporation the more likely their participation swings in the direction of post-democratic rhetorical politics.
While Citizens United advances the claim that no "government interest" exists to justify limits on the corporate identity of the speaker, a democratic interest embedded in the form of rhetorical politics provides both a reason to limit the speech of a corporate speaker, and, perhaps more radically, a reason to deny corporations the identity of speaker in the first place.