I'll add, does being paid to regurgitate aforementioned protected speech still garner constitutional rights?  Monetary incentive and a chain of command to throw under the bus:  Shills in court be like "I was paid/instructed to say XYZ", therefore the money source and upper mgmt would become the defendants.  In which case, I don't think the "free speech" argument would hold up.  Especially given the likelihood of foreign bankrollers and donors.  E.g. Shill --> Media Matters --> D. Brock --> Open Society Foundation --> G. Soros.... And so-on and so-forth