BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The individual mandate gives too much power to the Federal Government

The vertical separation of powers, under which the federal government possesses limited and enumerated powers, while the States wield general powers (including the right to operate their own police forces), is a key part of America's constitutional architecture. Far from being an 18th century affectation, these structural limitations on government powers were designed to protect individual liberty. In the Framers' view, limiting the ability of the federal government to exercise authority was core to ensuring that no single government entity would grow too powerful. This is because, under the Supremacy Clause, any constitutionally compliant federal legislation trumps exercises of individual state’s powers. Therefore, an infinitely capacious Commerce Clause (which would be produced if the mandating of healthcare were to be allowed) would rob States of any remaining authority.(8) When any choice or non-action which has economic impacts becomes termed as “economic”, every aspect of consumer behaviour, or, for that matter, any aspect of individual behaviour, would become an economic activity, and thus nothing would fall outside of Congress' power to regulate under the commerce clause.(8) The individual health insurance mandate would set dangerous precedents for federal power. The Congressional Budget Office acknowledged the unprecedented nature of an individual mandate when assessing the Clinton health care reform proposal of 1993: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate has two features that, in combination, make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would have to be heavily regulated by the federal government."(2) The 'commerce clause on steroids', as imagined by supporters of the healthcare mandate, would fundamentally warp America's constitutional architecture. Because every single decision by individual Americans, be it buying health insurance, cars, health club memberships or any other good or service, has some impact on the economy, it could be subject to regulation by Congress. Indeed, Congress would be able to dictate how individuals would dispose of every penny of whatever monies they have left after paying taxes, transforming Americans into virtual serfs.(8) For all these reasons the individual healthcare mandate would give too much power to the federal government, in ways which are antithetical to the Constitution as the Founders envisioned it and set it out (with restricted and separate powers), and so it should be deemed unconstitutional.
Money is intrinsic to political speech.

Something can be an appendage to a right. But it does not mean the government has an obligation to afford it the same protections as the right itself. Effective communication of political ideals also requires access to airways, printing presses, campaign staff, etc. But the government has no obligation to treat access to these as a Constitutional, inviolable right, on par with one’s freedom to say what she pleases.  An expression of an opinion is protected strictly by the letter of the law.  However, the Citizen's United decision effectively expands this protection to two new entities: 1) non-person and 2) act of spending.  Rather than reinterpreting current legislation that protects free speech, new laws ought to be created seeking to protect these two entities from committing to political expressions.  And, this has to be exercised through the legislative branch rather than judicial. With the Citizen's United decision, the judicial branch is effectively writing new legislation that is 1) recognizing corporate entities to have same political expression rights as citizens/individuals and 2) redefining the act of spending to be the same as an expression of an opinion as well as an act of demonstrating an expression of an opinion.
Money as “symbolic expression”.

Money cannot be considered a form of symbolic expression the same way burning a flag is. Money only magnifies a certain idea, by giving it a greater platform. It is not a constitutive part of speech, or speech in itself. If someone burns a flag in political protest the point she’s making does not become more powerful or popular by burning additional flags, nor does her influence become directly proportional to the amount of flags she burns. The symbolic gesture of a donation and the endorsement that comes with it does not also require the right to spend unlimited sums of money to express one’s support.
Money as a metric of support for political ideas.

Money gives a megaphone to one point of view. That view then gains more notoriety by spending more money to advance and promote it, by using mass media to bring it to the attention of a broader group of people, by hiring advocates to persuade a broader audience, by creating hype around an issue or candidate, with financial resources. Figuring out what came first, the money or the popularity these candidates gained; is a chicken or egg dilemma. Money and popularity are part of a self-reinforcing cycle
Money is property.

Money is a fungible resource and can fulfil different roles depending on the context in which it is used.  It can be exchanged for almost anything and should be treated differently according to the circumstances in which it is used. It can be exchanged food, housing, weapons, medicine, services, hired hands. More conventional examples of property, such as real estate, or a car, have no equally fungible characteristic. When it is used to advance political debate, money becomes inherent to political speech. Therefore, in the context of campaign contributions and expenditures money deserves the protections of the First Amendment.
Unlimited political contributions undermine fair democratic representation.

Taken to its logical conclusion, such an argument can have anti-democratic implications. Perhaps the government should also cap the amount of time someone can volunteer to a political campaign or in support of a political cause. Other members of the electorate might have greater time or financial constraints which may not permit them to dedicate equal amounts of time influencing the votes of their fellow citizens.  And if one advocate is superior in eloquence, persuasion, or charisma to others, should she not be permitted to use her talents in support of her cause or candidate, because her voice is essentially “more effective”, to paraphrase the Court? Such an outcome-focused approach to the definition of fair representation ends up infringing on citizens’ fundamental right to pursue the advancement of their interests within the democratic debate.
Money stifles, it does not advance debate.

This point of view assumes an inherent virtue of middle of the road, status quo ideas, and picks winners and losers before the debate even gets a chance to occur. It presupposes that certain ideas automatically deserve less ‘airtime’ than others because at the moment they happen to be unpopular. Every great idea which moved the debate forward and modernized the world, from the abolition of slavery to universal suffrage, started as a fringe, unpopular idea at one time. Unpopular ideas, whether they turn out to be good or bad, might need a financial boost to join the debate that may establish their value. They cannot simply be pre-emptively deemed unworthy before even being scrutinized in the marketplace of ideas.
Money is intrinsic to political speech.

In Buckley, the Justices declared: “virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate's increasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.”[1] In the 2008 election, presidential candidates spent 1.7 billion dollars on their campaigns[2]. This helps to show that nowadays, the effective communication of political ideas cannot be achieved without the expenditure of money.  Therefore, one cannot protect political speech and at the same time place restrictions on the main resource which makes it possible, there is little point in freedom to elucidate ideas without the ability to spread those ideas. Spending money has become an inextricable component of political communication. [1] U.S. Supreme Court BUCKLEY v. VALEO, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=424&invol=1 [2] Jonathan D. Saland, “Spending Dobuled as Obama Led First Billion Dollar Race in 2008”, Bloomberg 2008. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aerix76GvmRM
Money as “symbolic expression”.

Not only is money instrumental to effective political communication, the expenditure of money in support of a campaign or cause is also, in itself, a form of political expression. The gesture of donating money expresses one’s allegiance to and endorsement of a candidate’s or organization’s stance on the issues that form the political discourse of the society we live in. It is a basic way of political engagement. It is also one which is most readily available to any citizen. Therefore, donating money is a speech act which needs to be protected, in the same way burning a flag is considered to be a gesture of “symbolic expression” which is protected by the First Amendment[1]. [1] Eugene Voloch, “Flag Buring and Free Speech”, Wall Street Journal 2009. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657642816289111.html
Money as a metric of support for political ideas.

Money is actually a very effective way of gauging the success of the ideas presented to the electorate, it shows the best political ideas and personalities in the through the market. It is often argued that politicians who spend a lot of money win elections. However, when this hypothesis was scientifically tested, it turned out that in fact successful and popular candidates merely attracted more money, the same way they attract more volunteers, more endorsers, and more votes[1]. Therefore, money, like an endorsement, is just a demonstrative way of throwing one’s weight behind a candidate one agrees with. Viewed in this context, money is not some sinister device for unpopular ideas to rise to the top against the will of the majority, but, like an endorsement, a form of speech supporting those ideas which are already popular enough to attract it. [1] Steven D. Levitt “Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes to the U.S. House”. The Journal of Political Economy, Volume 102, Issue 4, August 1994, pp. 777-798. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUsingRepeatChallengers1994.pdf
Money is property.

In his concurring opinion in Nixon v Shrink Missouri Government Pack, Justice John Paul Stevens said: “Money is property; it is not speech. Speech has the power to inspire volunteers to perform a multitude of tasks on a campaign trail, on a battleground, or even on a football field. Money, meanwhile, has the power to pay hired labourers to perform the same tasks. It does not follow, however, that the First Amendment provides the same measure of protection to the use of money to accomplish such goals as it provides to the use of ideas to achieve the same results.”[1] In other words, simply because money and speech can be means to the same end, it does not automatically mean they deserve the same level of protection. The freedom to use one’s property as she sees fit is different from allowing someone to say what she pleases. [1] Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, U.S. Supreme Court 2000 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-963.ZC.html
Unlimited political contributions undermine fair democratic representation.

Allowing for unlimited political contributions under the protection of the First Amendment distorts one of the most fundamental democratic tenets, the principle of fair representation – “one person, one vote.”[1] The Supreme Court has in the past also recognized this principle to mean more than the right to cast one vote which is counted equally. In Reynolds v Sims the Court held that “full and effective participation by all citizens in state government requires… that each citizen has an equally effective voice in the election of members of the state legislature”.[2] Such an “equally effective voice” is undermined by one individual or organization being able to influence the votes of thousands or hundreds of thousands through the deployment of financial resources which the average voter does not possess. This undermines the fair scheme of representation that is fundamental to a veritable democracy. [1] John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Chapter 12: “Maintaining the Fair Value of Political Liberties” [2] Reynolds v Sims, U.S. Supreme Court, 1964. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0377_0533_ZO.html
Money stifles, it does not advance debate.

We protect speech under almost all circumstances and cherish its freedom as a tenet of democracy because it enhances debate and better decision-making. We believe that in the free marketplace of ideas, where everyone is given an equal opportunity to advance competing points of view, based on ever more complete information, voters will be better informed to make the right choice for themselves in the voting booth. But money, unlike speech, does not have the intrinsic property of enhancing a debate. At best, it can be a facilitator for the debate, without having communicative value of its own. But at worst, instead of enhancing the democratic debate, it distorts it, by giving certain ideas disproportionate influence, based not on the value and strength of their arguments, but on the spending power of their supporters. A clear example is the U.S. Tea Party movement, which has not enriched the debate in American politics. It has made it acrimonious, divisive, and radicalized. The Tea Party has empowered the fringes of American extremism. One has to wonder if these ideas would have done so well on their own, without having been bankrolled by millionaires like Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers[1]. It may also be used to stifle the other side; it is notable that in the 2012 presidential campaign more than 80% of adverts were negative so not attempting to inform voters.[2] For this reason, not only does money not fulfil the role which earns speech its expansive protections, it actively works against it. Money should be tightly controlled, not equated to speech and given limitless protection. [1] Frank Rich, “The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party”, New York Times 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?_r=0 [2] “Mad Money: TV ads in the 2012 presidential campaign”, Washington Post, 14 November 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/track-presidential-campaign-ads-2012/
The American Jobs Act Will Help the Long Term Unemployed

The long term unemployed in America are important to the economic recovery. Whilst those who are temporarily unemployed will eventually come back into employment and start contributing to the economy, they will often be offset by those losing work. For the U.S. economy to gain headway, spare capacity must be created in the economy for those who have not been employed for a long period of time. Should the U.S. be able to harness these workers and create extra employment capacity to keep them in employment, then the U.S. economy will see a boost as the number of people gaining work will outnumber those losing work to a more significant level than seen ordinarily in an economic recovery. The American Jobs Act helps in this area by creating what is known as a “Bridge to Work” program which capitalises on initiatives that many states have put into place in order to deal with long term unemployment. Specifically these programmes help those without jobs take temporary or voluntary work whilst they also pursue on the job training in order to make them more employable in the long run. There is also a $4000 tax credit for employers that hire long-term unemployed workers. Further, prohibitions on discrimination based on length of unemployment will also come into place. As such the American Jobs Act is likely to stimulate the economy through the creation of a bigger and better trained work force.1
The Jobs Act Redresses the Balance Between the Wealthy and the Middle Class

One of the more divisive problems in America is the increasing inequality between the wealthy and members of other classes. The harms that could, and have resulted from this extend to the Occupy Protests in the tail end of 2011, as well as riots With the rich consistently seeming to get richer despite the poor economic climate, many of the less rich within the American economy feel that the state is playing against them, conferring advantages on those best able to lobby politicians and make large election campaign donations. This is problematic when it is state mechanisms that will enable American’s who lack access to costly universities to better educate and train themselves, thus making them more employable thus allowing them to help push the American economy out of recession. A popular consensus has emerged amongst America’s middle class, which portrays the recession as an event triggered by the rich, with rhetoric regarding “Greedy Bankers” playing into the public discourse on the ineffectiveness of state regulation of large financial institutions. The American Jobs Act redresses the balance between the wealthy top tier of American society and its middle and working classes. In doing so, it helps to alter the perception of the rich and their contributions to society. The burdens currently confronted by America’s middle class are addressed in a number of ways. Firstly, payroll tax, a pay-as-you-earn tax that is withheld from employee’s wages, will be significantly reduced. As such, any families with a large number of working members will be subjected to a much lower tax burden. This would provide a tax cut of around $1,500 to a typical American family.2 Given also the higher tax burden placed on the rich with this tax, and the system that results is likely to be skewed more strongly in favour of working Americans. Further, changes in the taxation system will also be able to sure up any loopholes that have been exploited by the rich to avoid taxes. Finally, the jobs act redresses problems where the largest subsidies go to things such as charitable giving and mortgage interest – presumably things which are paid by people who need subsidies the least. Caps will be placed on such tax breaks under the act and as such, money will be more likely to go to people who need it more – the poor or unemployed. In bringing about these changes, better economic circumstances are created for the poor and the balance between rich and poor is likely to become smaller.3
The American Jobs Act Helps Small Business and Creates Jobs

The American Jobs Act helps small businesses and is also set to significantly increase the number of jobs available to people. Small enterprise is particularly important in the creation of jobs because these businesses tend to be start-up businesses. Many start-ups are entrepreneurial in character, and succeed or fail on their ability to identify and exploit new markets. Increasing investment in new and emergency markets spurs the creation of additional jobs within those markets. Thanks to the cuts in payroll tax contained in the Jobs Act, many small businesses will stand to benefit by gaining some of the money paid to the government back. The President’s plan will also eliminate payroll taxes entirely if firms add new workers or increase the wages of their current workers. As such, there will be significant incentives for small businesses to hire more workers.­1 Cuts to payroll taxes, combined with the other changes planned by the bill, are estimated to create 100,000 jobs a month for the next year, accompanied by a projected 1.25% increase in GDP. Moody’s Analytics is even more optimistic about the likely benefits to the American economy should the act pass, predicting growth rates at 2% and claiming that 1.9 million jobs will be created as a result.5
The American Jobs Act is Not Deficit Neutral

One of the issues with the American Jobs Act is that while it is claimed that it will be deficit neutral this may not actually be the case as the costs are front loaded whereas the revenue is not. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it will be neutral by 2021 but will increase the deficit by $288 billion in 2012,11 meaning there is a lot of scope for mistakes in the revenue increases or even higher interest rates than expected meaning it contributes to the deficit. If it contributes significantly to the deficit then the economic benefit that the jobs act might create could simply be subsumed in greater repayments on bonds in the future by the U.S. As such, any spending under the jobs act will have to be recouped elsewhere in the American system under taxation. Logically speaking, whilst extra government spending could potentially be more efficient, such sweeping changes that are claimed to cause such a significant amount of benefit to the American economy are almost certain to require extra governmental spending. This case is enhanced by the fact that, when addressing the affordability of the act, Obama and his administration’s officials  are vague about how the act will be financed. The act states “To ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the President will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reductions necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target. The President will, in the coming days, release a detailed plan that will show how we can do that while achieving the additional deficit reduction necessary to meet the President’s broader goal of stabilizing our debt as a share of the economy.” If this is true, the financing of the act is dependent on a super committee finding the funding available somewhere in the American budget. If they are to significantly increase taxes they will likely find it difficult to pass such action, given how likely Republicans are to resist such an action. As such, implementing this Act is likely to end up cutting into the deficit significantly more.9
The American Jobs Act Encourages Risk Without Infrastructure or Results in Inaction By

The American Jobs Act is problematic because one of the main causes of the recession was excessive risk taking in certain businesses. This reckless behaviour was the result of poor regulatory infrastructure – the state and independent agencies were doing too little to monitor banks’ conduct. Whilst some spending from the act is going on the improvement of infrastructure in the form of better checks and balances on businesses such as banks which are critical to the economy, the majority of the spending is instead going on tax breaks. Whilst taking risk and encouraging risk is generally a good thing in recessions, the way in which money is put at risk must be controlled. If it is not controlled well enough then there is a significant chance that such spending could simply lead to another recession because of another crisis in another financial sector.9 Alternatively, businesses may opt to place a greater focus on debt repayments. This is what occurred during the Japanese crisis of the 90s. Companies might act in this way because they fear taking risks in such an unpredictable climate. If this is the case then the economic stimulus that the Act is meant to provide simply will not occur in the way that is intended, and much money that could have been spent on infrastructure will be wasted elsewhere.9