Actually, your mention of campaign contributions and "give money" suggests that you don't understand Citizens United. I write that because Citizens United had

Actually, your mention of campaign contributions and "give money" suggests that you don't understand Citizens United. I write that because Citizens United had nothing to do with contributions to a politician's campaign. The question in Citizens United was whether some folks can get together and make a movie advocating against a political candidate without being subject to campaign finance laws. There's no question that the NYT (and unions) can advocate for/against a candidate in any way that it sees fit; the question in CU was "are other groups different?" The CU decision was "there's no difference between the NYT and any other group. If you have a way of speaking, you can politic with that way as you see fit." Feel free to explain why the NYT (and unions) shouldn't be limited but others should be. (Condo associations often put news in their newsletters, so ....) Alternatively, explain how you're going to limit the NYT's ability to advocate for political candidates and causes without repealing the 1st amendment.