A corporation is a group of people. A group will tend to be richer than a single person.
And a letter from that group is probably more representative of the collective opinion of the people working there than (say) a Senator's votes are representative of their state.
I've never worked for any corporation whose corporate opinion had any relation to my own. If employees can be required to distance themselves from their employers when stating an opinion on their blogs, employers should be required to state that the opinion of the corporation does not necessarily represent the collective opinions of its employees.
It doesn't work this way. The corporation could get sued if an employee (representing the corporation) says the wrong thing. The converse won't happen.
Yes, I was one of those, too. And yet, people use employees in arguments for corporate free speech (as did the post to which I originally replied ("people working there")).
And a letter from that group is probably more representative of the collective opinion of the people working there than (say) a Senator's votes are representative of their state.