Shades of gray. There's some significant gray area when it comes to more tangible things like servers, etc, but I think if you're having a hard time discerning between a group of individuals volunteering time and a group of individuals who use obscene wealth to derail the democratic process in terms of effects on democracy, we probably need to reframe the conversation somehow.

Would a celebrity endorsement be a dressed up pig? The going rate for a Kardashian tweet is absurd. But how would it be "fair" if they were disallowed from tweeting if everyone else could.

I think it's impossibly complex and nuanced, and trying to paint this kind of activism as equal to corporate and individuals buying elections is blatantly disregarding that complexity. There goal is to balance the contributions of individuals and special interest groups in a way that no single party is able to grossly tilt the process in a way that harms it. What that means in the real world is incredibly complicated and to be determined, but I can't see individual volunteering of time and skill as being the same as individuals volunteering millions of dollars.