Cato sides with spammers?

In response to Robert A. Levy’s NRO guest comment on do-not-call this morning, I’ve written NRO as follows:
I’m really surprised that someone from Cato would interpret the First Amendment to protect “commercial” speech. All my life I’ve been told that the Founders were interested in protecting only POLITICAL speech. That is to say, the kind of speech that might have gotten one dragged off and thrown into the king’s gaol. I just don’t see how you can get a “commercial” right to speech out of the First Amendment, or for that matter, a “right” to say anything you please to anyone to whom you please to say it.
I’ll buy flag burning (reluctantly), because I consider that to be political speech. But I don’t buy Klan speech (because it is hate speech), nor do I buy gangsta rap (ditto). The Founders didn’t anticipate Klan speech or gangsta rap (in my opinion they probably didn’t anticipate flag burning, either, but would have understood it), but that’s no reason to read special “penumbral” rights into what they DID say.
I have a right to prosecute people who trespass on my property. Why don’t I have a right to tell telemarketers I don’t want them trespassing on my telephone line? (I understand that I can tell them not to call me again, but why should I have to put up with them calling me in the first place?) If enough people want the government to provide a central list of those who do not want to be called, why is that considered an abridgement of some phone spammer’s 1st Amendment rights? What happened to my “right to privacy”? (OK, cheap shot, privacy rights are just more penumbral BS.)
Are we going to go through this same idiocy when someone finally decides to create a government “do not email” list?
I -do- have, at this moment, the right to file a prohibitory order with the USPS telling marketers that I don’t want mail from them. (see http://www.junkbusters.com/dmlaws.html) Why would Cato not wish to see that same right extended to my telephone and to my email?