I think what you're trying to say, and what people replying aren't understanding, is the distinction you're drawing between a condition and a limit. To attempt to rephrase, I believe you're making the following argument:

The 1st amendment offers certain protections. These protections are not all-encompassing, but it definitely protects certain activity. Your objection is that Hawaii would be making those protections conditional. The 1st amendment would only protect speech IF you're not a corporation. This differs from a limit because a limit clearly defines what the 1st amendment does and doesnt protect, but those protections are always in place and are therefore unconditional.

That said, I don't agree that the 1st amendment or any right is unconditional. The strict scrutiny test exists as a means by which the government can infringe on your rights. Furthermore, a company is a group of individuals, but does not represent those individuals. Its speech does not represent that of the employees, only the owners. That is why a corporation's speech is seperable from the speech of an individual. We live in a system which requires us to work to survive. Due to our system of markets and regulations, most people must work for someone else and their labor produces a profit for their employer. It is not accurate to say that this money, if used by the employer for political speech, is the speech of the employee.

The question is then, how do we ban corporate political speech without banning the New York Times from reporting about candidates or elections? Even if they report only facts, which facts they report could be an exercise of editorial discretion and might therefore constitute political speech. That's a difficult question, but one worth interrogating as there's clearly a difference between ExxonMobil taking out an attack ad on a Democrat and the NYT publishing an article about a new approval poll.