Google is getting a lot of attention, mostly positive, on the left today for its direct statement opposing what it calls a "misguided & wrong" North Carolina law. I haven't studied that law deeply, but as portrayed by Google, and as viewed from a distance, it seems aimed at depriving transgender people access to the bathrooms they want to use.
It's ironical, because a lot of the ones cheering Google for its corporate political speech opposing the North Carolina law are the same ones denouncing the Citizens United Supreme Court decision striking down as unconstitutional restrictions on political speech by corporations. A lot of the opposition to corporate political speech, in other words, seems to depend on who is doing the speaking. If it is the Koch Brothers spending on lower taxes or less environmental regulations, the left wants to ban it and attacks the Supreme Court for permitting it. But if it's Google defending transgender bathroom access, the left is okay with it. The objection isn't to corporate political speech, but to the content.
People try to draw distinctions to allow themselves to defend Google but not Koch or Citizens United. One is the difference between a "tweet" and a campaign commercial. Or between opposing a law and calling for a vote for or against a politician who voted for or against a law. But these seem to me like awfully fine distinctions.