Seems pretty clear that you meant to imply that their speech drowns out the speech of others. This is the real reason behind CFR and why the courts keep getting in its way. The state may not decrease the effectiveness of one speech act just because it is more effective than another. That would grant the state the power to regulate speech.
It is not necessary that the group be considered a person. The NAACP is nothing more than a group of people joined together in common cause. When they speak they are in effect exercising the speech rights of their members. Why shouldn't they be allowed to speak?I didn't say anything about people not being able to join together in common cause. What I did say is that said group should not be considered an actual person itself.
And they should be able to advocate their causes. As long as they do so OPENLY. Would you want a Chinese competitor secretly supporting a candidate that would put you out of business? Or any competitor for that matter? Pretending to be "Grandmothers in support of keeping kids safe" or whatever?