It’s not going to be “speech,” it’s going to be advertising. And despite the fact that every single individual believes themself to be immune to advertising, it wouldn’t be a multi-billion dollar industry if that were the case.
The constitutional-legal reasoning of the decision, if that’s what you mean, is irrelevant to the topic stated n the OP.
What do you see as the difference?
Right. What’s the difference between a newspaper article and a newspaper ad, or 60 Minutes and an infomercial, as far as the First Amendment is concerned.
And please don’t bring up some code of journalism as a justification for this. First of all - for the purposes of the First Amendment this is irrelevant. Secondly we have seen in recent elections that media companies can behave admirably or badly alike - this has little bearing on their right to publish or be on the air.