The USSC does not say that "money is speech"

[ProSense]

10. Well said. Yes,

....The problem is that this corporate "personhood," which is necessary in some ways to conduct business, got all spun out of shape, resulting in the notion that a corporation has all of the same constitutional rights as an actual human. Obviously the humans who own and operate the corporation have constitutional rights, but how can you transfer those rights to the inchoate and abstract corporation, without disregarding the corporation's separate entity which is what allows the individual owners to insulate themselves from the corporation's debts and liabilities? I've never understood that.

You say corporations formed to disseminate speech have the right to free speech. I would argue that the individuals who formed the corporation have the right to free speech, but the corporation is merely the abstract entity organized to do so more efficiently, with no separate constitutional rights of its own. And what about those corporations that were just formed to do business of some kind, like the corporations owned by the Koch brothers? If those corporations weren't "formed to disseminate speech" in the first place, why would they have the right to free speech, independent from their human owners' rights?

...corporations can be sued. In the case of the "owner's rights," if the owner want the corporation to have the right to free speech, then when a corporation is found criminally liable, the owner should receive a penalty. If owners want to equate their personal views with that of the corporation, then when the corporation is found criminally negligent, convict the owners.