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

Corporations are People/ People are Corporations: My opponent has based some of his arguments on the idea that ‘Corporations are not people’. This issue has already been raised to the Supreme Court and they ruled otherwise, that Corporations do have the right to free speech as they are a kind of people. Many on the left like rallying behind this phrase ‘Corporations are not people’, but if you truly think this then I ask you exactly what do you think makes up a cooperation? If you answer anything other than ‘people’ than you have lost your mind. People sometimes are shareholders to corporations; people sometimes are CEO’s of corporations. Assembled people can speak out: Along with our basic rights spelled out for us in the Bill of Rights there is not just free speech that is tied to this issue but right to assemble. People have a right to gather together and form the NAACP or NOW or NRA or many of the other lobbyist groups out there. There are basically assembled people for the pure purpose of speaking out for something, the excise of our individual right to free speech as a community/congregation/group. It is an assured thing to ask that the right to free speech be hindered just because we do it together. This groups form together to use freedom of speech as a whole unit and no fuss is made over it. Corporations are a form of Assembled people: Being a cooperation retains all the basic elements there are to lobbying organizations like the NRA or NOW or like other group interties like a church or the Boy Scouts of America. Recently in the media there’s been much coverage of ‘the 99%’ gathering together to use there free speech as a whole assembled body. What makes Cooperation any different? Well it’s the idea that they have more cash on hand to contribute to what they speak out for and therefore…….they should not be able to do it? This makes very little sense to me, the basic right of the body of people that make up the cooperation should still by all tracks of logic be present, but they have a serious amount of cash to be able to by tv ads so they cant be allowed to use as much as they want? Less blessed with cash groups get to throw money at there causes relatively unhindered from giving there best, raising the most money they can and using it the most efficient way they can. Why shouldn’t I as a shareholder if I agree with the other shareholders get to do the exact same thing? Answering to the Voters: Politicians will always first and foremost answer to the voting public here in America. The case may have been made that because they are being given significantly useful amounts of cash to run there campaign ads that would change who answer to but the people who actually have the power to put them into office is the voter. Take me for example, a registered voter in Virginia. With current Campaign Finance Laws as they are, and the elbow room cooperation’s have to support there favorite candidates, they money they have used doing so has not bought MY VOTE. I support Rick Santorum for this current election and actually have done so since before he went up in the polls and won Iowa. Santorum is a Candidate without a lot of cash to run his campaign like Romney and Gingrich and yet he gained my vote. Gingrich having access to much money to manipulate the media outlets will never ever have my vote in spite of that advantage he has over Santorum. Votes flat out can’t be bought, you could stand at the closest proximity you can to a voting site and offer every voter passing through 50 bucks if they promise to vote for your guy, and it would just be and incredibly stupid waist of money. Because votes are done privately you can’t watch anyone vote they way you want to ensure they do as you asked. “Sure I’ll go vote Gingrich if you give me that money” and then they take you money after lying and they vote for who they actual want because that candidate they found best REPRESENTS there views. Last primary election I supported and voted for Mike Huckabee who was also a much less funded candidate, time and time again there have been cases like these where message won out over money. And in this day and age having a ton of ads on there tv commercials people skip with the DVR function anyway or tune to a station that’s actually playing music isn’t going to have nearly so much of an impact nearly as much as having something people want to hear you say. There are numerous news channels slanted in all directions available to find with ease, constant debates uncontrolled to give advantage to anyone, common access to computers for even the lower income citizens in places like the library if not at your own home, free wi-fi connections at almost any public place you go (like Barns and Noble, McDonalds’, Pannera Bread, ect) with commonly known websites like Opensecrets.org http://www.opensecrets.org... or votesmart.org http://www.votesmart.org... that allow even a layman to cut through the crap and know exactly what they are voting for. This very website we debate on is a beautiful testament to our freedom to have opposing ideas fairly clash and oppose, support, and explore each other. Why am I even arguing against whether it has negative effects or not?: Getting back to the heart of this debates resolution though, what does it matter if it opens gateways to bribery, corruption, ect….. So there is potential for bad, but does that change whether or not it is my right if I am a CEO? Or a shareholder of a company? I expect my opponent to say something like ‘you might should be able to speak out all you want but just not spend out all you want…’ Do remember I am not arguing for a change in status quo, we have campaign finance laws as is and they are strict enough. Spending money on tv ads is not the same as yelling fire by a long shot, nor is the same as yelling fire by giving money to people who are ultimately controlled by voters, not your money. Even my opponent must be aware that the status quo is not so horrible with our current level of financing laws as he speaks of the ‘possible’ dangers of our system ‘becoming’ corrupt. This by defaults admits its okay right now. Life is pretty good right now, I’m really not all that hindered from speaking out what I want and neither is my opponent, or the corporations out their And with this is the end of my main case, as per requested in round one I will save my specific rebuttals for the 3rd round. I await my opponents responses