Use of Money is a form of Free Speech, therefore no Campaign Finance Reform

To briefly address ‘cooperation’s are not people’ arguments (Con is right this debates focus is not if cooperation’s are people but if money is speech) Con admitted that corporations are assembled people. Yet still say’s they are not people. This goes to say he thinks people stop being people when they decide to get in groups and be people together. If this is considered true than there IS NO AMERICA for the WE ARE THE PEOPLE spoken of in the constitution are the people together, united as a group called the United States of America. Mistyped You say you miss-typed when you limiting airtime is an example of limiting free speech and men to say limiting content is a example of limiting free speech. True as that is you where also right the first time. Limiting airtime is like saying “well you can say what you want but you cant say it very much or very loud, you have to keep your views quite and too yourself. ” By limiting how much money we can give to campaigns your limiting our ability to buy airtime and thus limiting our right to free speech. They make billions! You over-exaggerate the how big a deal the difference in what a cooperation makes and what candidates make by themselves raising funds. You have to remember what a Candidate raises is embarked to be purely spent on their campaign. Just because Exxon makes over a billion dollars does not mean they have the liberty to just blow a billion dollars on a campaign. Much of those profits have to spent on running their company and its day to day cost. And investing that kind of money in campaigns is akin to throwing it away gambling. And while you might gamble with a few million when you make a billion, you don’t go betting the whole farm on the chance outcome of a political race. Obama spent 7 dollars on our votes! This is a fallacy of hasty conclusions. Obama spent more money on campaigning than Mcain by 2 bucks per voter so ergo he won as a result of the cash spending. You have to completely blot out every other thing you know about that election to make that conclusion. A) Obama won because he energized the youth vote B) For the first time in a long time the big red state of Va. Was a purple state politically C) Many people just wanted the first black president D) He is an amazing speaker E) He had a concise message of hope and change F) By your logic Obama had my vote because he spent more money or Romney did that election in the primary. None of these are true, I voted for Huckabee, then Mcain Palin when Huckabee lost. Each time my vote was ‘bought’ by poorer candidate. To be honest its kind of offensive that you even suggest my vote is decided by who spends more money in an election. This is utterly false and you ignored my point that already addressed this where I sited Huckabee’s and Santorums Victory in the Iowa Caucus early in the races showing message mattered more than money. ‘Real’ individuals should have more say…. This here I also found kind of offensive. Your suggesting I quit counting as a ‘real’ person if through Franklin Templeton investments I become a small shareholder in numerous companies with my mutual fund. Its ‘Unfair’ in some cases… Whether things are ‘fair’ or not is the most completely pointless thing to chase after. I couldn’t even get another DDOer to accept a debate over weather things can be ‘unfair’ but still best. . http://www.debate.org... He would not take the debate cause he knew as long as things are different for two people you can call it ‘unfair’. One person ‘has’ while another ‘does not have’ but just because that’s ‘unfair’ does not by default make ‘unjust’. If one day I should succeed in life so much that I have millions of dollars to just blow on presidential campaigns then it would be completely ‘just’ as my right to do that even if by that day you still can only spare 10 dollars on a political campaign. The ‘just’ though ‘unfair’ reward of success is like Dave Ramsey is found of saying ‘once you have lived like no one else now, later you start living like no one else’. Beans and rice now while your in debt means later you can get out of debt build wealth and start dining on steak like all the time. You drive a cheap salvaged gas efficient car now while your broke and one day you can afford to drive Hummer without being in debt. That might be ‘unfair’ to the people who cant drive hummers but its still your right. You start penalizing the success of assembled peoples now, you open the door to penalizing my success as an individual next. Money is a medium of exchange, not speech, talking is speech Yes money is a medium of exchange but that does not make it not a part of free speech because of that. And if talking was the only form of speech then I ask you try and convince my friend who speaks sign language of that. What we use that medium of exchange for is in itself and act of speech. By donating to some of your cash to Ron Paul you making a statement you believe in what he stands for. The loudest and greatest from of speech will always be tell the end of time our actions and how we live our lives. You want the world to do something about starving children in Africa, get with a program that will have you pay to feed a child out of your paycheck over there. Held accountable by the voters While I commend my opponent for doing an excellent job this debate, your arguments have been perhaps better formatted than my own, you have sourced liberally, and you have been very respectful, and passionate to a fault on the topic you have not debated before. But while you have made good arguments its rather crippling to the core of your case this last issue you left un-refuted I brought up last round. Its flat out not possible to buy a vote. Not even if you stood at the ballet box to pass out money before people vote could you do it. People like me who can say we voted for Huckabee are proof of that. No matter how you try to paint it, at the end of the day our political leaders job security rest with us the voter, not the financing source to their campaign, cause that’s all that part of careers is the campaign. Its just funding to get ads on the tv, but it will not be enough to make them appeal to us the voters. They have to appease us with their actions in congress, they have to appease us with the light of there good characters we can see now. The only thing that puts our democracy in danger is ignorant voters who do not take the responsible action of going to votesmart. org or opensecrets. org or many other sites in an age where researching your vote has never been easier and spread of info has never been free-er through the internet.