Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission should be overturned

For clarification--as we discussed via private messaging--we will be allowing rebuttals in Round 3. First, let's define our terms: Citizens United v. The FEC (CUVF) is the 2010 Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations and unions to spend money on electioneering communications--advertisements mentioning the name of a political candidate within 60 days of a general election (or within 30 days of a primary). Money was effectively deemed speech, and corporations people with constitution rights. This case was used as a precedent in SpeechNow. org v. FEC, which removed limits on expenditures, provided that they were indirect, giving rise to infamous Super PACs and leading to an influx of corporate money into the system. I will be arguing that CUVF should be overturned. I. Money is not speech. Speech is a fundamental, intrinsic human right. By virtue of our humanity we have a right to freedom of speech, but to the extent that we have a right to material things--and some would argue that we don't--the right to money is not fundamental. To live in a democracy that preserves freedom, we must be able not only to voice our opinions, but to do so to the same extent as our fellow citizens. If money is speech, people with more money have more speech. Moreover, they have more leverage to exercise their right to freedom of speech, and to "buy" more speech. Therefore, there is no equality of opportunity. That inequity begets more inequity, as monied interests donate to Super Pacs supporting candidates promising to promote policies that directly benefit them--e. g. , tax cuts for the rich and financial deregulation--and perpetuate an inherently flawed system. CUVF doesn't protect free speech; rather, it hinders it for people without the means, influence, or resources to bribe politicians. A good example is that now CEOs are earning about 380 times what the average worker is earning, relative to 42 times in 1980. Does a CEO have 380 times the amount of speech that a worker has? II. Corporations are not people If corporations are people, they should be tried like individuals and held accountable for their actions to the same degree. However, they are not. Legally, the "corporate veil" exists, protecting shareholders and directors from accepting personal liability for the actions of the company. This sets up a dichotomy, providing a preference to the already affluent. Moreover, corporations and large financial institutions are given substantial preferences in the justice system today. Why weren't the Wall Street executives who committed huge fraud that led to a global meltdown prosecuted? They were "too big to fail," and their influence is far too large. In fact, some (e. g. , Ken Langone) went after Eliot Spitzer because, as Attorney General, he went after financial speculators. Why weren't further actions taken against HSBC, accused of allowing laundering of over $670 billion to Latin American drug cartels? Let's use Eric Holder's words: "too big to jail. " III. CUVF obscures democracy. Money talks. The data is clear: 93% of the time, candidates for the House of Representatives with the most money end up winning. The figure is 94% for the U. S. Senate. Let me ask you this: if you're running for Congress, are you going to stand on principle, in spite of what large donors say, or are you going to pander to them? Logically, it makes sense to follow the money, as it provides a clear path to success. Consider the 4 Republicans in New York who flip-flopped on gay marriage after hedge fund managers promised to fundraise for them, and ended up raising $1.25 million (mind you, for a state election). Now, I support gay marriage, but the end hardly justifies the means. I want to win the debate on these issues; I know that, if the money came from the other direction, the outcome would have been quite different. That is not democracy, nor is it government "of the people, by the people, for the people. " This is a government largely predicated on corporate money, where 30-second advertisements--many of which are deceptive (e. g. , Mitt Romney's misleading ad on Chrysler moving to China, which the Washington Post debunked)--take precedence over principle, intellectual debate, and progress. Moreover, big money in politics causes politicians to promote policies that perpetuate income inequality, at the expense of middle- and lower- income Americans. Consider big oil tax breaks: As of October 2012, the big five oil companies spent about $105 million in the course of a year, and as a result were awarded billions in tax breaks. About 90% of total contributions by the oil and gas industry went to Republicans, which makes sense, since Paul Ryan (R. -Wis) included $45 billion in oil subsidies in his budget (which, might I add, his family benefitted from). The data is clear: big five oil, in conjunction with people like the Koch Brothers, support candidates who will uphold the system, and produce blatantly deceptive ads to deceive people into voting against their own interests. This suppresses the voice of the public, and deters people with alternate views, who actually want to change the system, from running or from adhering to their principles. IV. Americans do not trust their politicians. Perhaps what you won't often hear in the mainstream (corporate) media is that Americans, by and large, distrust their government. 87% described reducing corruption in the federal government as either "very" or "extremely" important. 86% believe that the decisions of politicians are heavily influenced by corporate donors. 78% believe that the amount of money corporations can spend should be limited, while 70% believe that corporations already have too much control over elections. If we live in a democracy, and "We the People" are the ones in power--with elected representatives working for, not above, us--what ought to happen is clear. V. CUVF obscures other issues. This is the "mother of all issues" because, without mollifying the influence of money in politics, we cannot achieve progress in other areas. Take climate change, for instance, which 97% of scientists will testify is man-made. But obviously addressing this issue would hurt Big Oil, and thus there have been significant attempts to curtail any action whatsoever. $150 million in misinformation advertisements promoting fossil fuels. Americans for Prosperity, funded by the Koch Brothers, released an advertisement falsely claiming that stimulus dollars devoted to clean energy resources went overseas, which was factually incorrect. Another example is the American Petroleum Institute (note: its CEO, Jack Gerard, was rumored to be on Gov. Romney's--the GOP nominee at the time--radar for a WH appointment) also contributed to this misinformation campaign; Gerard claimed--in line with the Romney narrative--that oil production on federal lands was down. In fact, it was up by 240 million barrels under Obama. These initiatives, along with others (e. g. , American Energy Alliance, also with Koch ties) have targeted clean energy initiatives and sought to maintain the current power structure: big oil. The narrative extends beyond climate change, though. With Wall Street donating millions--even to President Obama, who called them "fat cats"--do you truly think genuine financial reform will be seen through? When organizations attack Senator Elizabeth Warren for wanting to expand Social Security or reign in the excesses of Wall Street, do you think we'll ever achieve that reform? When Americans are seeing disingenuous advertisements that serve corporate interests, rather than their own, how can they make informed decisions at the ballot box? My central thesis is this: Corporate money precludes democracy, stifles the voice of the public, perpetuates inherent income and wealth inequities, and inhibits progress. I submit that political campaigns should be 100% publicly funded; in this way, we will remove the incentive for politicians to base their decisions on the desires of their wealthy donors, and instead promote policies that benefit the vast majority of Americans. Without this change, I do not believe that the US can rightfully be called a democracy. Videos . http://www.youtube.com... (1) Presentation by Cenk Uygur of WolfPac and The Young Turks at Columbia University (statistics about NY Republicans who changed their positions on gay marriage, the impact of money in Congressional elections, etc) . http://www.youtube.com... (2) John McCain Opposes CUVF Sources . http://www.washingtonpost.com... -- Mitt Romney's misleading ad . http://thinkprogress.org... -- Big Oil, Koch Brothers, Americans for Prosperity, etc . http://www.law.cornell.edu... -- "Corporate Veil" . http://www.bloomberg.com... --HSBC scandal . http://www.demos.org... -- background, and includes figures about American's distrusts of corporations . http://www.nytimes.com... -- background . http://www.publicintegrity.org... -- background . http://money.cnn.com... -- CEO pay . http://thinkprogress.org... -- Paul Ryan and oil subsidies . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... - Eric Holder