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

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.