So is fraud, libel, extortion, sexual harassment, impersonating a police officer, perjury, incitement, performing a stage play without a license from the writer, etc. but this hasn't stopped congress from passing laws to abridge the freedom of these particular kinds of speech. It's quite clear that the "freedom of speech" referenced in the 1st amendment pertains to expressing one's own sentiment, and that this is not the same as expressing something one is paid to express. The mental gymnastics necessary to convince oneself that spending money is protected speech are likewise ridiculous.
Legislatures have tried to pass laws regulating commercial speech in various ways and the track record is generally that they get their asses handed to them by the court, because this is basically the most protected right in our system.
It's fine if everyone here wants to fantasize about some alternative system, but "we make advertising illegal" is not something that can happen in our system of governance.
Courts consistently interpreting a law wrongly is cause for amending said law to clarify its intent. Amending the constitution is certainly something that can happen within the system of governance as evidenced by the fact that we are discussing an amendment to it. It's just a law, not a religious document. Granted, clarifying the 1st to read more like Madison's draft is unlikely to happen anytime soon for cultural reasons.
When it's literally 100 years of consistent jurisprudence this kind of argument loses some of its teeth. Liberal courts, conservative courts, modern courts, old courts, they all seem to agree on this point.
> Legislatures have tried to pass laws regulating commercial speech in various ways and the track record is generally that they get their asses handed to them by the court,
I mean, no, legislatures (both Congress and the states) successfully limit commercial speech all the time, which is, for instance, why no one in Gen X has seen or heard a TV or radio ad for cigarettes in the US when they were old enough to purchase them.
> but "we make advertising illegal" is not something that can happen in our system of governance.
Broadly banning "advertising" (under almost any plausible definition that would be reasonably accord with common use) would probably fall afoul off the 1st Amendment as it is today, but our Constitutional system of government includes provision for changing any feature of the Constitution (nominally, except the equal representation of states in the Senate, but that restriction neither protects itself from being amended out, nor protects all the functions of the Senate from being amended out and the equal representation being at zero seats per state, so it is more of a symbolical than substantive restriction.)
