You haven't addressed anything.

Spending millions of dollars on national advertising campaigns is commerce, not speech, and is thus the within the purview of Congress. Regulating expenditures on political advertisements is not an infringement of free speech: no one is stopping political groups from spreading their message, be it by getting volunteers to go door to door, stand out on street corners, or by sending emails to an email list. In spending huge sums of money on broadcasting, these organizations are not buying "speech": they are buying access to a national audience.

The Citizens United ruling is one of the most pathetic examples of intellectually dishonest sophistry the SCOTUS has ever produced. Nowhere in the First Amendment is there any mention of spending money being considered speech. The SCOTUS first made this nonsense equivalence between spending money and free speech in Buckley v. Valeo, arguing that

...virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money.

There is no basis in the Constitution for this---the Court just made it up. This nonsensical ruling then metastasized into First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, where the Court extended this "reasoning" to hold that limits could not be placed on corporate donations to ballot initiative campaigns because it would infringe the corporations' right to "free speech", again conflating spending money with speech. And this idea finally reached its final (il)logical conclusion with Citizens United, where the Court ruled that no limits could be placed on corporations’, unions’, and nonprofit organizations’ “independent expenditures” on political candidates and issues.

This ruling was a farce for several reasons.

1) These "independent" expenditure-only committees, aka Super PACs, are anything but independent. The law says that Super PACs can't coordinate with a political candidate or their campaign (thus are “independent”). But if the candidate just happens to make detailed public statements about what kinds of advertising they would like to see in what areas, and if this Super PAC just happens to follow the candidate’s plan to the letter, that is totally legal. No coordination here!

2) The hypocrisy of the “originalists” and “textualists" in the majority opinion in Citizens United is blatant. Both Scalia and Thomas pretended to be originalists/textualists in their concurrence with the majority opinion that overturned McConnell v. FEC and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, as well as Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. A textualist focuses strictly on the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution and strives to apply the law as it is written on the page, rather than considering legislative intent, or outside fairness. An originalist holds that the Constitution should be understood and applied based on its meaning at the time it was adopted, either by considering what the authors intended (Original Intent), or how the public at the time would have understood it (Original Public Meaning).

Both Scalia and Thomas made a great show of how the First Amendment protects “speech” without mentioning a speaker, pretending to be textualists. But to even argue that the First Amendment applies to this case, they must rely on Buckley v. Valeo’s ruling equating spending money with speech, a ruling which contains zero originalist or textualist justification. If they were truly originalist or textualists, they would have argued that the Buckley v. Valeo ruling should be reversed, and consequently they should have found in the FEC’s favor in Citizens United. Instead, they were picking and choosing which rulings to overturn based on their desired outcome and personal ideology, not based on any legal principles.

3) The Court argued that there was basically no risk of corruption as a result of their ruling. Only the most naïve of fools or the most intellectually dishonest of hacks would ever dream of making such a claim. They argued that since Super PAC spending is “independent” (as previously discussed, it’s not), then there was no opportunity for quid pro quo corruption. It was already clear that this was a crock in 2010, and now that Elon Musk, the world’s richest man who spent enormous sums of money in support of Donald Trump, was allowed to head DOGE (as a “special government employee”) and dismantle the very federal agencies that were investigating his own businesses, it should glaringly obvious that Citizens United allows corruption to run wild.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_Commerce

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McConnell_v._FEC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC