You are implicitly saying that an organization spending money is equal to speech. OK, the Supreme Court agrees with you on that, e.g., Citizen's United.
Nonetheless, governments often use laws to influence such actions. For example,
private organizations are free to spend their resources as they want as long as it does not violate criminal law, but they can't expect the government to want to do business with them.
Title IX: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
What about a business that refuses to serve gays? Isn't that speech? Well, no, they might be charged with violations of the Civil Rights Act, or other discrimination laws, and the government could also refuse to do business with them.
These laws have been tested and are constitutional. There are certainly people who disagree with them, and there are certainly opportunities for private organizations to do choose not to be open to the public at all and to act in ways that the rest of us may not approve, but even though they won't be jailed or fined, they can't expect government support.
Just because Ben Norton and friends may want the constitution to be against Israel, doesn't mean it is and sloppy reasoning won't make it so.
On another point, Ben Norton's introduction of "McCarthyism" to describe support of Israel is a new one, but not surprising. Zionists are now called every bad thing in the world: Apartheid, Fascist, Racist, Genocidal, Colonialist, Imperialist, and now McCarthyite. This is getting kind of transparent - the projection of all the sins of the modern world onto one small country.
= new reply since forum marked as read