Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission should be overturned

Your case about "taxation without representation" misses the mark, because corporations are not an entity enshrined in the Constitution.Corporations do not need to be enshrined in the Constitution to meet the qualification of being taxed without being represented. Before the Constitution was written, when the phrase "taxation without representation" was first used to apply to the US, no one was enshrined in the Constitution, not individuals, not businesses, not religious institutions, no one, and yet, we still fought against unreasonable taxation, not just for individuals, but for businesses as well! In addition, we could say that immigrants possessing a Green Card, yet working in the US are taxed without representation, and I would say so. Immigrants are not enshrined in the Constitution either. Foreign companies operating plants in the United States are subject to our laws and taxes, and yet, you would deny them the capability to speak in the political process that affects them? Individuals on the board, as I said, are doubly affected by the laws passed in Congress. Denying the corporate entity, which in and of itself is affected independently of the individuals who make up it's board, employees, management, and shareholders, the right to back a candidate that will positively affect their survival does amount to taxing an entity without providing it with the chance to have a say in the process. Enshrinement in the Constitution is irrelevant to the matter at hand. You didn't challenge my claim that money isn't--that, if we accept that it is, people with more money have more speech.I didn't challenge it because in one part of your argument, you say that Money isn't speech. Then, halfway through, you say "Money talks." Which is it? Is it speech? Or is it not speech? If it is capable of talking, should we not consider it speech in some form or another? As to the assertion that people with more money have more speech, that would be completely valid IF those non-profits, Super-pacs, etc. were able to directly contribute to the candidate of their choosing. But they can't. As such, when it comes to the ability to affect a campaign or contribute to corruption, they lack the power to do so, even with all the money in the world. So your argument here is irrelevant as well, because without direct and unlimited contribution power, there is no difference in the speech levels afforded to individuals and the speech levels afforded to corporations. if even if we accept that corporations are people, and that money is speech (and I don't, but I will entertain the possibility for a moment, for the sake of argument), there are reasonable restrictions on freedoms.I completely agree. And I argue the reasonable restriction on the freedom of individuals already exists, in the form of limits on direct contributions to campaigns,and the ban on direct contributions from corporate entities and non-profits, etc. Anything more infringes up the rights of all.Therefore, continuing to defend CUFC is taking an absolutist stance that displays apathy toward the effective legalization of bribery. I showed you the data on that, too.You showed me nothing of the sort. Rather, you showed a correlation between candidates that win elections and candidates that receive the most donations. You did not show causation. That is, you did not, and cannot, prove that the reason the candidate won is because of his donations. The very fact that the numbers are not 100% for both the House and the Senate prove the weak foundation your argument sits upon. And finally, the final decision on who wins rests in the hands of the voters, not the money itself. To argue that the money is doing the voting, when money cannot vote, is preposterous. And that's essentially what you are doing.I reject the premise of this argument, as it places the blame entirely on voters---many of whom are the victims of this decision.Reject it all you want. The fact remains that the blame IS entirely on the voters. It's the voters job to sort through the arguments, lies or no lies, and make their decisions on who to vote for. If the voters are not doing so, not exercising their ability to think critically, and are instead taking these non-profits at their word, you have no ability to blame the non-profits, considering they had no voting power. Blame the people, for the blame justly lies with them.The assumption that being informed would thwart this problem is flawed. To be informed is to know about the President's ties to Wall Street, as well as Romney's, whose biggest donors were Goldman, JP Morgan, Bank of America, etc. As an informed voter, what can I do? Should I choose the "worst of the evils?" Should I vote for Green Party nominee Jill Stein, who stood hardly a chance at winning because she wasn't even in the national debates?Yes. Vote for Jill Stein. The vote is the final power, the final say. By casting a vote for Romney or Obama, knowing their ties, you endorsed their acceptance of the donations. You may be opposed to the donations, but you implicitly endorsed them when you voted for one or the other, as do all who take the position you do. If you truly believe Wall Street to be an evil, conniving, hateful organization, then vote against them, and against the candidates they endorse.I would argue that being informed is not only exceptionally difficult in the world where 30-second ads trump all, where the economy is failing and many Americans need to take on second or third jobs to make ends meetThis is preposterous. In the age of free information, the internet age, it's exceedingly easy to find whatever you want to. Public Libraries have free access to the Internet, so you can't even say it's impossible for some to access the internet. At the end of the day, people make the conscious choice to believe the 30-second ads. You can't blame corporations and non-profits for the conscious decisions of individuals. Advertisements are protected under free speechAnd yet, money is spent on advertising. Thus, money is protected under free speech. Essentially, by spending money on independent expenditures, the companies, non-profits, etc. are advertising their beliefs. We even call them advertisements.The bulk of my claim is that, by law, boards are exempted from the same degree of liability as an operator of, say, a sole proprietorship.My opponent has a limited understanding of Limited Liability. While Corporate officers as whole are not liable for the actions of the corporation, individual corporate officers may be held liable for their specific actions which contribute to the actions of the corporation that are in question. This is the current law of the land in the US. As such, his assertion that they are treated differently falls apart once again. As to the discussion of the individual, an individual does not employ thousands of workers single-handedly, nor operate several hundred plants single-handedly. I am not defending too-big-to-fail, for I believe that those companies who utilized bad business practices and led to the recession should have gone down in flames, as a lesson to others. Rather, I am pointing out the absurdity of my opponent's remarks.Second, I want corporations to prosper, but they, ipso facto, are not the key to job growth: consumers are.This is a far from settled aspect of Economic thought. Economists to this day fight over whether or not consumption is the key driver of economic growth, or savings and investment are, and some even continue to adhere to Say's Law. Both sides have compelling arguments. But you are operating under an assumption that is niether widely accepted, nor proven, and therefore, your argument fails because your foundation is failed. oil tax breaks don't create jobs. A subjective statement with no backing in fact whatsoever. Tax breaks increase disposable income, which is then used by companies to pay for new capital investments, new research and development, and new employees. My opponent's assertion here is completely subjective, and runs counter to all established theory and fact.Corporate profits are at all-time highs, as are stock portfolios. Corporations are not suffering, but average Americans are. Again, you are operating under assumptions that are not warranted. Inherent in this argument is the assumption that corporate profits and stock-portfolios = corporate prosperity. This is simply not so. A Corporation is much more than it's profits or stock prices. Investment in capital is only just now being to rise again, while investment in labor is as spasmatic as it has been since the recession. The health of a corporation goes far beyond the stockmarket, and it is a sad fact that most Americans equate the stock market with the growth of the economy, when it is not so at all.