The US Supreme Court has ruled that the act of spending money (buying political ads) is a form of speech, or, a speech act (political speech). The implication being, of course, that political spending, under the aegis of free speech, cannot be restricted. The notion that spending is a form of speech does not seem straightforward to me.
What philosophical position can be taken to argue either for or against this assertion: "Participation in an institution (money/property) is the same as speaking, using language?"
Is paying for speech really the same as speaking? The corporation, the entity, exists only in the realm of the institution of money. It is a tool to facilitate commerce. It can be said to participate in the institution of money.
An individual or group of individuals express business ideas/intentions through a corporation. But a corporation does not express itself through individuals. There must be an argument concerning the nature of speech which would define the boundary between an individual and an entity such as a corporation.