The speech isn't illegal - the act of trading based on insider information is. This works in a similar manner to bomb-making plans being legal to disseminate, but making a bomb being very illegal.
> Why is paying someone to murder someone a different category than other forms of speech?
This is solicitation to commit a crime, which is a specific exception to the 1A.
> Why are intentionally deceptive drug advertisements a different category than other forms of speech?
This is a false statement of fact, which is a specific exception to the 1A.
> Why is pointing a gun at someone and telling them to do something a different category than other types of speech?
Pointing a gun isn't speech, it's coercion.
The act of paying for something. That's not a very helpful distinction to make when the proposal is not being able to pay for certain ads.
> This is a false statement of fact, which is a specific exception to the 1A.
Political ads are deceptive all the time.
And what does "specific exception" mean? Specified by what?
* https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transc...
Enjoy.
Free speech does have certain restrictions, which you can easily read about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
Contrast with the Basic Law of Germany article 5, that has already come up in this discussion, which outlines specific exceptions in paragraph 2. (For another example, see article 8.)
Real exceptions exist, regardless of whether they are written in the original amendment text or in rulings afterward.
Amendments were added to the body of laws after the constitution, and congress and the supreme court have since added more to the body of laws after the amendments. The cumulative result is what governs citizens today.
Those laws are in fact very specific about their exceptions, as shown very clearly in the wikipedia link. What exactly do you find fuzzy or confusing about them?
Case law, as you linked, is not. It also keeps changing without the underlying documents changing. I don't know how you can look at all those dates marking times high courts had to get involved and still say it's clear.
Why is paying someone to murder someone a different category than other forms of speech?
Why are intentionally deceptive drug advertisements a different category than other forms of speech?
Why is pointing a gun at someone and telling them to do something a different category than other types of speech?
I'm going to claim that it's because these forms of speech enable types of coordination and coercion that corrupt processes and structures that we deem essential for the operation of society. So, pragmatic reasons.
Placing limits on the payments, direct or indirect (a dollar I spend is a dollar a candidate doesn't have to spend), that can be made to aid people in gaining a position that places them in charge of allocating public resources, that's something that very few people seriously argue against. What they argue about is what those limits should be.
You can make an argument that payments to candidates and government officials should be allowed, but making absolutist arguments that something is speech and therefore must be permitted isn't serious. Payments to a television station to run an ad that you financed the production of is surely less worthy of being called speech than calling in a bomb threat is - at least the bomb threat is using your mouth to say a thing. Speech, instead, is what we define to be speech. If it's to encompass all expression, you might as well call selling cigarettes without a tax stamp speech.