It was implied that I wouldn't support the case you were making. Otherwise I wouldn't have outlined why it was a bad idea.
Nah I was just pointing out hypocrisy in supporting the status quo prior to the supreme court ruling that unfairly targeted business groups. But since you've made it clear you don't support any group giving money you are at least being consistent.

Excellent. However you have to understand that giving people money is not speech or a protected form of expression, and rights are inherent to people, not non-living entities like corporations, unions, or groups, and it would be best not to confuse laws, which can apply to both people and things, with rights, which apply to people.
Don't conflate two issues.

First what is speech.

Second is who gets it.

On the matter of the first, paying for newspaper ads, printed pamphlets, TV commercials and the like IS speech. The test is very simple. Would you be OK with the government banning someone from using said mediums to express their point of view? Again the source doesn't matter until we get to question #2. Answer the first one and we can have a discussion but if you conflate the two then your just glossing over an important distinction.