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

This is a subject I haven't debated on before, but I'll try it. C1: Money is a medium of exchange Money is not a form of speech. Money is an object. Therefore, it is a form of property, as a medium of exchange. Spending this money is utilizing your purchasing power. Therefore, a limit of purchasing power in Campaign Finance Reform would be limiting donations to political candidates. A example of a limit of free speech in Campaigning would be limiting the amount of airtime a candidate can voice with political advertisements on. C2: Corporations Should Have Limited Role in Campaigns Our nations should not be effectively guided by the interests of corporations. Many large companies that rake in billions of dollars could pour their funds into a politician's campaign, which would have numerous implications, including: Making fringe candidates less likely to succeed Making grassroots funding insignificant Making national policy become corporate interest Making the America become Corporate America Fringe Candidates Fringe candidates are considered candidates that are not mainstream, or not widely known. With no corporate donations, fringe candidates can act as catalysts of change that can possibly allow them to win. However, with corporate donations, fringe candidates have a lower chance of succeeding, since they would (fringe candidates) be even more outspent. Corporations with no limits is Corrupt Since currently there are no limits with spending with campaign finance laws, [1] corporations are allowed to donate unlimited amounts of funds to a politician's campaign. These actions do not even have to hurt corporation's profits by a wide margin. Consider this example: In 2008 Barack Obama raised roughly $750 million dollars. Compare this to the profits of a single company, for example ExxonMobil in 2008, had $45 billion dollars in profit. [2] This is very dangerous to a political system of a nation. Consider this example. Obama raises about the same in 2012 as he did in 2008, about $750 million dollars, about 1/2 of it from internet donations, which is a truly democratic way to run a campaign. [3] Then, let's say that Newt Gingrich is selected as the GOP nominee. Since he has a few positions that are popular among the rich, notably the 0% Capital Gains and Dividends taxes and signifantly lowering the corporate tax rate, Corporate America would of found their guy. With corporate profits at record highs at over $1.6 TRILLION dollars, [4] corporations would be able to fund Newt Gingrich's campaign by a large amount. If just 1% of corporate profits were donated, this is a total of $16 billion given to Gingrich's campaign. Obama's, which is funded by more grassroot approaches, is outspent by over 21 times. This is not democracy. That is plutocracy. Then, if Gingrich was elected president, many "free market, small government" policies would be implemented. That would be mostly at the expense of the public. So, corporate interests would be ahead of national policies. This is unjust and corrupt to the highest extent of the word. Money is not speech Corporations are property, not persons. Money is a medium of exchange, not speech. Speech is not an item, but an individualized human expression of ideas or information not dependent on any exchange. [5] With much money in a politician's campaign, a campaign has much purchasing power, not speech itself. With much more money, this equates into much more power to communicate ideas. With the interent or other forms of media such as the radio or television, the media takes the role as messenger. The media replicates the politician's message in a commercial manner. Then, the media gets money in return with payments. However, they are getting paid for repeating the politician's original idea, not added speech. If one sells spoken or printed words as a product in exchange for money or favor, only the time used to prepare, the organization and delivery of the communication has become a commodity, not speech itself. How could commercial “speech” be anything other than a product? [all 5] Bribery It is legal to talk to a politician in order to try to persuade a politician. However, some are saying that money is equatable to speech. If that was so, a corporation should be fully allowed to persuade a politician by speaking to them with money. This is an example of bribery. However, if spending is truly a form of speech, then this bribery should be allowed. This is absurd. You may counter that spending doesn't promise a change in a politician's views. That is really naive though, because the spending is used to do just that by providing funds and support to a campaign. [6] Even if money was accepted as a freedom of speech, this doesn't mean that it should be free of limits. Consider it to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, when there really is not a fire. This is limited, and corporate funding should be too since it is serious harmful to the campaigning process. Conclusions: In the case of unlimited spending by corporations, this does serious harm to the political process by increasing the influence of corporations far beyond the number of people who make them up and thus proportionally decreasing the influence of those who are not in control of corporations. To use an analogy, it is on par with having a public discussion in which the people controlling corporations are allowed to use sound systems up on the stage and individuals are expected to try to shout out their views from the crowd. [6] Sources: [1] http://money.cnn.com... [2] http://act.credoaction.com... [3] http://www.thedailybeast.com... [4] http://www.nytimes.com... [5] http://www.supportows.org... [6] http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com...