So I'm guessing that means you are for free speech unless that speech is about political issues and involves spending money you have legally acquired. In a free society, shouldn't political speech be the absolutely most free form of speech?
"the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint."
Not the other definition of freedom that says:
"the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint up to a maximum value of $2600 per candidate in a single election"
The problem comes from when you assign the rights of an individual to that of a corporation, whose sole purpose is to maximize profits. I don't think anyone would argue that individuals should have first amendment rights, however I'm not convinced that the bill of rights should be applicable to a company.
So individuals actually lose free speech rights when they unite with other individuals to form a corporation?
If that is the case, it restricts the rights of the poor relative to the rich. A rich individual can afford a TV advertisement campaign on his own. A poor individual needs to pool his money with the money of other like-minded people to be able to afford that same TV ad campaign. The common way for many people to pool their resources to act for a unified purpose is to incorporate.
Please note, I'm using the dictionary definition of Freedom as reported by Google (https://www.google.com/search?q=freedom+definition) that says:
"the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint."
Not the other definition of freedom that says:
"the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint up to a maximum value of $2600 per candidate in a single election"