If money is “speech” in an electoral context, what about during the course of governance?

Could direct payment of cash, or some other thing of value, to an official in exchange for some official action, or forbearance from some official action, be construed as a very convincing argument that is protected by the First Amendment?

To give an example, suppose two people have separate meetings with an official regarding a pending application for, say, a building permit. The first person is a resident of a neighborhood that adjoins the property on which the proposed project will be built. That person explains to the official that the project will cause substantial noise pollution at all hours of the day and night, will depress property values to a significant degree, and will cause all of the residents of the neighborhood to develop a non-fatal condition that causes them to grow additional heads that emit flatulence from their mouths, which will cause unemployment problems.

Like this, but I guess with more farts.

The second person meets with the official and explains that the briefcase in his hand has $1 million in cash that will belong to the official if the permit is issued.

Briefcase-full-of-money GIFs are not easy to find, okay?

Currently, both the official and the second person would be guilty of bribery, under state or federal law, assuming the official takes the money. In a post-Citizens United world, though, is that constitutional? What if the official just found the second person’s speech more convincing than the first?

Of course I’m being sarcastic, but less absurd examples of this are entirely plausible. Citizens United and McCutcheon explicitly limited the First Amendment’s protection to money spent on political campaigns, but as a thought experiment, would future courts necessarily stop there if another compelling argument (and I do mean one using words here) came along? Since the Supreme Court held that money is “speech” for one specific purpose, why not for others? Discuss.