It wasn't a fascist decision, and doesn't move us any closer to fascism than we might have been before 2002. Corporations are comprised of individuals, and the court found they had the inalienable right to speak freely, regardless of their affiliation as a corporation. The counter-argument is more fascist, in that it maintains the state authorities can limit the rights of these groups to have a political voice (see Totalitarian Fascism).
And you can have whatever paranoid thinking you like about corporations, but it makes no logical sense. If a corporation is concerned at all with making a profit for itself and it's shareholders, you'd think they wouldn't want to destroy the consumers who they depend upon to buy their products, wouldn't you? I mean, a reasonable and rational person might think, a corporation would benefit from the people prospering and doing economically well, perhaps? But you say, they exist solely to destroy the middle class and drive everyone into poverty? Well then, who are to be their customers in the future? Obviously, if they have destroyed us all, and ruined us financially, we can't possibly afford to buy whatever they have to sell as a corporation... so what was the point of them destroying us? Do you see how what you are saying makes no logical sense whatsoever?
