No, it isn't speech. It's used to provide you with a podium, but a podium is not speech, and has never been seen as such since the beginning of the US.
It's amusing that the Supreme Court has said on numerous occasions that the government has the right to regulate the means, location or time of speech (see: Anti-abortion protest laws, regulating where a mob can protest a convention, or better yet, limiting where someone can protest a speech by PRESIDENT BUSH) and yet you teatards have an issue with the Supreme Court regulating the MONEY used to make the speech. It's stupid.
Much as I said in a previous post, if you cannot make your point without using terms like 'teatards' then you really lose the debate right there. Further, your post contains a number of presumptions not the least of which being that I or those holding my views would somehow see the CU case as 'good' and would also see the gross failures of justice concerning some other SCOTUS rulings on the Free Speech question.
Speech is expression. If I don't own or control a TV network then realistically in this day and age one of the best ways I can express my beliefs is via the spending of money. Either on a company, or on or against a political candidate/position. I still maintain that the Left didn't get busted up about such things when it was "their" side doing it and only got upset over the CU case because now suddenly the Evil Right can do it too.
Also, you think Obama doesn't have/use free speech zones and other sorts of non-sense then you're deluding yourself. If you think that I don't see both as a terrible affront to Liberty then consider yourself corrected.