TPM, here. Judicial opinion, here.
Without studying, but by scan reading, it all seems moot under the Citizens United decision.
It involved charges DeLay ran a PAC that funneled corporate contributions to candidates while election statutory law designated such a channeling to be criminal. The opinion includes much detail beyond that. Election code provisions that "unduly" restrict corporations' speech rights, per Citizens United (like it or love it), has been stricken as unconstitutional so that now giving is permissible in ways that then had corporations using indirection in funding favored persons.
Now indirection is not needed. The middleman is superfluous. While the appellate court did not analyze things that way, it seems to be how things stand. Fictions, evasions and fig leaves apparently are not now required.
Give directly, or is there still a corporate wall of some kind distinguishing between hard and soft money? I do not claim expertise in such hairsplitting. Others may know and care more.
Any reader wishing to qualify or correct my analysis is invited to submit an on-point comment. The post is based on a cursory reading, at best.