Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission should be overturned

As for the economic arguments, again, you are wrong. It is settled. In fact, Ben Bernanke, Bruce Bartlett, business surveys, the WSJ, and academic research bear out my case that lack of aggregate demand is halting the economy now.Here, my opponent commits the appeal to authority fallacy. Ben Bernanke is notoriously Keynesian and is only one man in a field of thousands in the US alone, business surveys do not make science, and the WSJ runs both ways, depending on the author of the article in question. The academic research does not, contrary to your assertion, reveal a consensus. In fact, it reveals the exact opposite. As someone presenting an economic paper at a Research Conference this April, I can tell you from personal experience that Keynesian Demand economics is NOT a settled topic at all. Papers contesting the assertion that demand is the source of growth are consistently being published. The fact is, there are more schools of economic thought being taught in the world than Keynesianism. The Harvard/MIT schools of economics would not and do not treat Demand as the chief and sole source of economic growth. The Chicago School, even less so. The New Institutionalists do not treat Demand as the chief source of growth either. I am only naming a few of the schools who would contest your assertions.You are misrepresenting the history of "taxation without representation." There was no fight against "unreasonable taxation." The taxes, actually, were quite small. The battle was over virtual representation vs direct representation. Colonies could not elect their own representatives, but were governed "virtually" by a Royal Governor from London. There is absolutely no parallel here.Here are only a few of the acts imposing implicit or explicit taxes on the Colonies:Stamp ActNavigation ActMolasses Actand many others. Of those, nearly all of them had direct consequences for Businesses. For example, the Navigation Act required businesses to channel all trade through Britain FIRST, where the goods would be inspected, and then duties on the goods would be paid. Who do you think paid the duties? The company who was shipping the goods, that's who. Next, as to your assertion that there was "no fight against 'unreasonable taxation,'" I now quote the Declaration of Independence, with the relevant passage in bold:"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:"My discussion, it would seem, actually hits the mark, and not just grazing it, but with a bullseye.Next, you are wrong again when you say that "no one" was enshrined in the Constitution. The press, in fact, was--the only institution the founders mentioned, might I add (which is why it's a travesty that politicians like Diane Feinstein and Peter King are trying to effectively decimate journalism)--was mentioned, as were "the people." You claim that we fought against unreasonable taxation on businesses, but don't you realize that the British crown's taxes did not target businesses? The Tea Act was not a tax on business, but on consumption.Read my assertion again please. I said that when the phrase "no taxation without representation" was first used to apply to the American Revolution, no one was enshrined in the Constitution, and thus we could not claim that the phrase referred only to individuals. How can an entity be enshrined in a document, when that document didn't exist at the time in question? Next, you use one act among many to illustrate your point, and thus fail in your overall position. Allow me to break down the acts and their implications for businesses:1651: Navigation Acts. Already discussed above1733: Molasses Act: Imposed duties on imports of Sugar and Molasses from foreign countries. Who paid these duties? Not the citizens of the colonies, but the colonial businesses importing the goods.1764: Sugar Act: Amended the Molasses Act and provided for greater enforcement of the Navigation Acts. Raised duties on Sugar and Molasses.1765: Stamp Act: Required all Royally endorsed stamps to be placed on all public and legal documents. Do you think, in your naivety, that individuals were the only ones with legal and public documents? Businesses had to purchase the stamps too, and arguably more often because they dealt with the State on a more frequent basis. Thus, the costs associated with the stamp act would be borne primarily by the businesses who interacted with the Public Sector, not the individuals.1767: Townshend Acts: More customs duties placed on over 70 different items. Indirect Taxation by nature, the costs are borne, again, by the companies doing the importing.1773: Tea Act: "The Tea Act of 1773 granted the East India Company exclusive license to import and distribute tea to the American colonies. Tea was sold in America at 10s per pound, half its previous price and less than the cost of smuggled tea. Despite the economic benefit to end consumers of tea, the law damaged the position of independent shippers, smugglers and local shopkeepers."[1]1774: Boston Port Act: prohibited all commerce going to and from Boston Harbor. Again, if you think the individuals were the ones chiefly affected by this, you would be naive.As I have just shown, your arguments regarding taxation are not only flawed, but downright incorrect, and you have even failed to accurately characterize the Tea Acts, to which you pointed for your main support!! Furthermore, your constitutional argument is irrelevant, because if the founding fathers were alive today, they would agree with me.A subjective statement, and one my opponent cannot prove at all. Regarding the rest of that paragraph, Alexander Hamilton was in favor of Industry, and he was a founding father. In fact, we can thank the Founding Fathers for Industrial Patents! (see cited source) [2] The counter, of course, is not only that the notion that policy would threaten a corporation's existence is paranoid and nearly laughable--I'd throw it in the same category as people who believe in an absolutist view of the 2nd Amendment in order to thwart "government tyranny"--but nearly irrelevant.It's my turn to laugh. If policy could not threaten a corporation's existence, explain Communism. Explain the Government's ability to nationalize an industry. Explain to me how taxation doesn't cut into profits, profits which are used to invest in new capital, profits which are used to invest in new labor. Policy does have the ability to threaten a Corporation's existence, and to assert otherwise is to be wholly ignorant of reality. And it is completely relevant to the discussion at hand. If policy has the potential to threaten the livelihood of businesses, it is reasonable for businesses to at least be able to express their opinion of policy. The tax rates paid by executives is irrelevant to our discussion. Mitt Romney sponsors and runs charitable organizations. And you cry foul when he marks them down on his taxes? Here I thought we were supposed to be in favor of charitable organizations and those who create them. But no, you are not content with someone willing giving away a portion of their income to help others, you would take it from them by force, because by YOUR reasoning, they aren't doing enough. How arrogant, to think that you can determine what constitutes enough of another person's income! How prideful and selfish must you be, to think that your opinion of charitable donations and organizations is the only valid one!In the end, how many votes does a CEO get? 1. How many votes does a homeless man have? 1. Your whole position is crumbling beneath your feet, yet you can only scream your sound-bytes as you fall into the abyss. It is truly saddening to see someone so incapable of facing reality. CUFC does not solidify any system of justice. The instances you refer to had absolutely nothing to do with elections!! There is absolutely NO causal evidence showing that the system is "bought on a quid-pro-quo basis." My assertion that "We the People" should not be able to interpret the Constitution, is driven by the fact that it is not in our power to do so. The Judicial Branch retains that power. As to our ability to amend the Constitution, we have that ability. But should we exercise it for the purposes you adhere to? Not at all, not unless we wish to completely destroy all prosperity in the US. In the end, corporations do not vote. That is why I say they should be allowed to indirectly contribute only. You admit causation is impossible. Then relinquish your position. You have just admitted defeat. What happens when those emails or signed contracts are found? Are not the parties involved brought to justice? The answer is YES. 93 is greater than 7, but it is not 100. That's all I need.You assert that people are bullied into voting against their own economic interest, and this is so laughable I almost fell out of my chair. Do you know who bullied people? Union Thugs. Not Corporations. People make a conscious decision to vote one way or the other, and there is no coercive action against them at all. You are making a fool of yourself. The greatest lie is the one you tell yourself, that you are victims, that you have no role in the quagmire you find yourself in.I am not done. but I run low on characters. [1]http://www.stamp-act-history.com...[2] http://www.forbes.com...