Those individuals can make their own expenditures in support of their First Amendment rights which are no less than the First Amendment rights that anyone not associated with a corporation has.
Not if their money is tied up in corporations.
If the corporation has rights then they are in addition to the rights their associates have on their own.
I keep hearing that. No one has yet to put forth an argument for it.
I haven't always supported the positions of the corporation I'm associated with and it offends me that they can imply that I do through their expenditures.
Then choose not to be associated with it or change the corporation's positions. Your emotions otherwise mean nothing.
You seem to think that money is equivalent to free speech but in reality it is merely an amplifier of free speech. Most corporations (especially the large ones) have resources far in excess of of most individuals. That stacks the deck in favor of corporations and wealthy individuals enough and I'm tired of my voice being drowned out by them.
Technically, most corporations are shells and/or individual corporations and don't have such resources. But even if we consider big corporations what's a constitutional valid justification for preventing them from exercising a particular right to speech and yet allowing you that right? Merely having a lot of money and saying things you don't like aren't good enough IMHO.