How do you think assemblies of people get together to speak who can’t all be in the same place at the same time? They have been paying spokespeople since time immemorial.

I don't think anyone here is interested in debating the merits of Citizen's from first principles. Suffice it to say that your reasoning is not the one the court chose, so I don't know where you're going with this.

My point was simply the wording above: the court CHOSE to issue a very broad decision in Citizen's, just as it chose NOT to issue one here. And the reason is just simple desire and not any kind of principle. The court wanted to, and that's as far as it goes. You see the same skew in logic in arguments about Roe, where the same people (like you) who think Citizen's is fine for throwing out huge regulatory areas based on a novel reading of the constitution suddenly think it's "judicial activism" to find a right to medical privacy in the due process clause.

I was merely responding to your specific comment which seemed to suggest that a holding that groups have First Amendment rights and that they can pay people to represent them was somehow novel.

“It was a (very) novel interpretation of the constitution (both the extension of corporate personhood and the notion of money-as-speech were completely new tricks) that allowed it.”

There is an enormous volume of prior case law that says the same thing.