money as free speech case against prostitution laws

If money is free speech (it isn't but the Supreme Court ruled that it is), then shouldn't any money that a person gives to a provider be protected as free speech? After all, without any money being exchanged, the acts are 100% legal by themselves.

In other words, how does adding free speech to a legal act make it illegal?

Or is money somehow only considered free speech when it is used in politics? How does this magical transformation from money to free speech back to ordinary money take place, justice Scalia?

The 1st Amendment is about free speech against the Government; it doesn't cover general free speech.

Although I hate their argument, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that limiting political contributions represented suppression of free speech regarding government elections.

And lets not forget that corporations are people. We give them money and they fuck us.

Sounds like the classic definition of prostitution to me...