BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Public supports free speech of corporations and unions

Anthony Dick in The National Review noted “a recent Gallup poll shows that a majority of the public actually agrees with the Court that corporations and unions should be treated just like individuals in terms of their political-expenditure rights."[28] According to Jordan Fabian, a Gallup poll taken in October 2009 and released soon after the decision showed 57 percent of those surveyed agreed that contributions to political candidates is a form of free speech and 55 percent agreed that the same rules should apply to individuals, corporations and unions. Sixty-four percent of Democrats and Republicans believed campaign donations are a form of free speech.[29]
Corporations already influence elections through PACs

Greg Palest. "Manchurian Candidates: Supreme Court allows China and others unlimited spending in US elections." OpEdNews. January 23rd, 2010: "The ruling, which junks federal laws that now bar corporations from stuffing campaign coffers,will not, as progressives fear, cause an avalanche of corporate cash into politics. Sadly, that's already happened: we have been snowed under by tens of millions of dollars given through corporate PACs and "bundling" of individual contributions from corporate pay-rollers."
Citizens United illogically increases money in elections

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor dissented from the majority ruling on Citizens United, arguing: "At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."[16]
Unlimited corporate spending exists in many states w/o problem

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission 5-4 Majority Opinion of the Court: "26 States do not restrict independent expenditures by for-profit corporations. The Government does not claim that these expenditures have corrupted the political process in those States. [...] For the reasons explained above, we now conclude that inde-pendent expenditures, including those made by corpora-tions, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."
Media speech implicates shareholders; no different with other companies

Supreme Court majority January 21, 2010 opinion on Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission: "3) The Government’s asserted interest in protecting share-holders from being compelled to fund corporate speech, like the anti-distortion rationale, would allow the Government to ban political speech even of media corporations. The statute is underinclusive; it only protects a dissenting shareholder’s interests in certain media for 30 or 60 days before an election when such interests would be implicated in any media at any time."
Unlimited election spending is radical change

Fred Wertheimer. "Turning clock back 100 years, decision will corrupt government." The Atlanta Journal. January 27, 2010: "The decision is the most radical and destructive campaign finance decision in Supreme Court history. In order to reach the decision, five justices abandoned long-standing judicial principles, judicial precedents and judicial restraint. [...] With a stroke of the pen, five justices wiped out a century of American history devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy."
Corporations are no form of free association/speech

The constitutional law scholar Laurence H. Tribe: "Talking about a business corporation as merely another way that individuals might choose to organize their association with one another to pursue their common expressive aims is worse than unrealistic; it obscures the very real injustice and distortion entailed in the phenomenon of some people using other people’s money to support candidates they have made no decision to support, or to oppose candidates they have made no decision to oppose."[10]
Spending limits foster equal not free speech

Cato Institute researchers John Samples and Ilya Shapiro wrote that restrictions on advertising were based on the idea "that corporations had so much money that their spending would create vast inequalities in speech that would undermine democracy." However, "to make campaign spending equal or nearly so, the government would have to force some people or groups to spend less than they wished. And equality of speech is inherently contrary to protecting speech from government restraint, which is ultimately the heart of American conceptions of free speech."[4]
Unlimited corporate spending is not constrained like with PACs

Greg Palest. "Manchurian Candidates: Supreme Court allows China and others unlimited spending in US elections." OpEdNews. January 23rd, 2010: "Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks (Barack Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC's federal disclosure filing and see the name of every individual who put money into it. And every contributor must be a citizen of the USA. [...] But under today's Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support candidates without limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias."
Corporate spending in elections violates shareholder rights

Trevor Potter, former Chairman with the Federal Election Commission and General Counsel of John McCain’s 2000 and 2008 Presidential campaigns, submitted a legal brief in favor of limiting corporate spending: He said: "Everybody has the ability to participate in the political process, meaning the election or defeat of candidates, except the for-profit corporations using shareholders’ treasury funds. That, it seems to me, is an appropriately narrow exemption given whose money that is, the shareholders’."[11]
Limits on spending are limits on speech

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission 5-4 Majority Opinion of the Court: "Section 441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech. As a 'restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend onpolitical communication during a campaign,' that statute 'necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restrict-ing the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.'"
Allowing corporate free speech simplifies election regulation

Richard A. Epstein. "Free speech for corporations. Undoing the progressive mindset." Forbes. September 1, 2009: "The progressive mindset, therefore, does not counter any real abuse, but it paves the way for a set of election regulations of such mind-numbing complexity that former FEC commissions don't understand either, as Hans A. von Spakovsky's recent Wall Street Journal column reveals. Do we aspire to Byzantine rules that let the crafty find loopholes while stopping honest corporations from participating in public debate? Striking down the whole McCain-Feingold mess should clear the air and invite Congress to think about narrower regulations that might survive scrutiny if the Court takes this opportunity to return the First Amendment to its classical liberal roots."
Corporate free speech enhances the public debate

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission 5-4 Majority Opinion of the Court: "Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster” (quoting Bel-lotti, 435 U. S., at 783)). The Court has thus rejected theargument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons.” [...] it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule."
Free speech more important than fighting corporate interests

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission 5-4 Majority Opinion of the Court: "The concurrence explained that any 'undue influence' generated by a speaker’s 'large expen-ditures' was outweighed 'by the loss for democratic proc-esses resulting from the restrictions upon free and fullpublic discussion.' Id., at 143. [...] In United States v. Automobile Workers, 352 U. S. 567 (1957), [...] The dissent concluded that deeming a particular group“too powerful” was not a 'justificatio[n] for withholdingFirst Amendment rights from any group—labor or corpo-rate.' Id., at 597."
Corporate free speech adds complexity to campaign finance

"Corporate Free Speech." Law Offices of Joseph Markowitz. January 21, 2010: "Of one thing we can be certain. This decision opens the door to a lot of new and interesting legal questions, such as whether Congress can devise new restrictions on campaign expenditures without amending the Constitution; whether Congress or the states can re-define what it means to be a corporation so as to limit corporations' ability to participate in electioneering; whether other remedies (e.g., derivative suits, defamation suits) can be pursued against corporations that spend excessively on campaign-related advertising. If government is forced to exit the field, that may leave it up to private parties to fight these and other issues out in the legislatures, the courts and other places."
Govt has no authority to selectively offer free speech

Floyd Abrams, a well-known progressive First Amendment lawyer, argued for lifting restrictions on corporate speech/spending in elections in Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission: "We should not make technical distinctions about the degree of First Amendment speech" rights, depending on the nature of the entity that engages in the speech –– we [would] then go down the road to start defining press entities which will get the protection [and] speech entities which will not get the protection, and I don’t think that’s a place we want to be."[6]
Status quo already allowed for foreign influence

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission 5-4 Majority Opinion of the Court: "We need not reach the question whether the Govern-Cite as: 558 U. S. ____ (2010) 47 Opinion of the Court ment has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’spolitical process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s]”). Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominatelyby foreign shareholders. Section 441b therefore would be overbroad even if we assumed, arguendo, that the Gov-ernment has a compelling interest in limiting foreigninfluence over our political process. See Broadrick, 413 U. S., at 615."
Unlimited spending lets candidates focus on message over fundraising.

One of the main problems in elections is that candidates are typically strapped for cash, and often must spend the majority of their time fundraising, instead of focusing on their message. Unlimited corporate spending, in addition to unlimited political party spending and individual donorship would allow candidates to focus on their message, the changes they want to make, their plans for governing or voting while in office, and on informing the general public about these plans so that they can make a more informed decision about their vote.
Corporate free speech helps check government power

"Corporate Free Speech." Republicans and Conservatives Archives. January 23, 2010: "It is understandable that there is opposition to this concept, particularly from those who have no conception of the corporate power of government. [Yet], I wholeheartedly support the Supreme court's decision lifting limits of corporate free speech. We have a great national corporation able to speak freely on behalf of its desire for power. It would be suicidal for us to limit our responses to such a concentration of expression to a cacophany on individual voices or to eschew an effective tool by which many individuals can focus their voices into harmonious opposition."
Free speech does not apply equally to companies

"The Court's blow to democracy." New York Times Editorial. January 21, 2010: "The founders of this nation warned about the dangers of corporate influence. The Constitution they wrote mentions many things and assigns them rights and protections — the people, militias, the press, religions. But it does not mention corporations. [...] Most wrongheaded of all [in the Supreme Court's 2010 decision] is its insistence that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights. It is an odd claim since companies are creations of the state that exist to make money. They are given special privileges, including different tax rates, to do just that. It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate."
Unlimited spending breaks stranglehold of incumbents

Capital University Law School professor Bradley A. Smith, a former chair of the Federal Election Commission and a long-term campaign finance reform opponent, wrote that the major opponents of political free speech are "incumbent politicians, shocked by the apparent tectonic shift in politics of late" who "are keen to maintain a chokehold on such speech." Empowering "small and midsize corporations—and every incorporated mom-and-pop falafel joint, local firefighters’ union, and environmental group—to make its voice heard" frightens them because it breaks their damaging stranglehold on existing seats, which exist largely because they are able to raise more money than prospective up-start rivals.
Shareholders will limit corp spending on elections

Richard A. Epstein. "Free speech for corporations. Undoing the progressive mindset." Forbes. September 1, 2009: "In other cases, corporations are subject to shareholder control and to popular disapproval that can translate into reduced sales if they inject themselves into controversial matters that don't pertain to their business. Faced with these corporate realities and market constraints, why use the law to quiet their speech, which could add a distinctive perspective on many questions?"
Corporations do not have rights like individuals

Lisa Gilbert. "In The Public Interest: Corporate Democracy - The Citizens United Opinion." Huffington Post. January 21st, 2010: "A corporation is not, nor has it ever been, a person with voting rights. Corporations cannot get married, they cannot die, and a corporation is not a part of "We the People." The very idea that they can now channel their immense wealth to advocate directly for or against a federal candidate is abhorrent."
Numbers 35:30,31,33

- "If anyone kills another, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses; but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of a single witness. Moreover you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer who is subject to the death penalty; a murderer must be put to death...You shall not pollute the land in which you live; for blood pollutes the land, and no expiation can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it."Cited by Gunby as what God prescribes for the breaking of the sixth amendment
Capital punishment is too often the decision of a single authority.

Because Capital Punishment is resolute and irreconcilable, its application is either reserved for extremities, or for judicial statements regarding the severity of the law concerned. Thus, it may be either used exceedingly sparingly or overtly. Any sentence that welds such influential decision changing power cannot possibly be applied equally and fairly across all Judges/Juries deciding the sentence. As such, it should be removed as sentence the court has over the people.
Capital punishment is void of compassion

Jesus Chris interrupting a public execution of a woman for adultery. John 8:7, (NKJ) - "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." Jesus said this to point out that no man is sinless, and, therefore, that no man or woman can maintain a perfect moral high ground from which to severely punish another person with execution. Jesus' actions here are commonly interpreted to mean that a level of compassion, sympathy, and forgiveness is needed in any just law, and that a law that lacks such principles - such as capital punishment - is unjust.
"Thou shall not kill" means "thou shall not murder"; executions okay

Robert Meyer, Renew America Columnist. "Why Capital Punishment is Pro-Life". Renew America. 20 Sept. 2004 - "The commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill,' has been a source of great confusion. Most modern translations of the Bible have corrected the Hebrew translation to English rendering, 'Thou shalt commit no murder." This is an important distinction in the context of the death penalty, as the death penalty cannot be described as "murder". Therefore, the Bible does not forbid the death penalty.
Capital punishment does not allow for repenting as life imprisonment does

John Paul II was one of the strongest advocates of life without parole over capital punishment, and applied the above rationale. He strongly upheld the Catholic principle of repentance as well as social forgiveness, in the tradition of the teachings of Jesus Christ, and maintained that any just legal order would need to apply these principles at the same time as penalizing criminals. He argued that life imprisonment was the best route to achieving all the objectives of redress, societal protection, repentance, and restitution simultaneously.[7].
The expression an "eye for an eye" is a prescription for proportional justice and capital punishment

Robert Meyer, Renew America Columnist, "Why Capital Punishment is Pro-Life", Renew America. 20 Sept. 2004 - "The term 'an eye for an eye' in the scriptures, is not a directive for authority to seek vigilante vengeance, nor necessarily a mandate to recompense a literal eye-for-eye. This statement represents the biblical principle of Lex Talionis, that is, the crime must be proportional with the punishment. Often times in biblical law, the victim had rights in determining the precise punishment, up to a limit."
Gen. 9.6, "He who sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed", helps justify capital punishment

Robert Meyer, Renew America Columnist, "Why Capital Punishment is Pro-Life", Renew America. 20 Sept. 2004 - "Since biblical times, the death penalty has been deemed as a just punishment for capital offenses. 'He who sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed,' (Gen.9:6). Notice that the scripture tells us that this is a duty delegated to mankind, not exclusively reserved for God. Specifically the state is delegated the duty of bearing the sword against the evil doer (Romans chapter13), as a derivative sovereign, until the final just judgement of God. There is no vigilantism or vengeance motive in the equation."
Only love can conquer hatred and murderous acts

Hector Black, whose daughter Patricia was murdered in Atlanta, Georgia in 2000, Victim Impact Statement delivered before the Fulton County (Georgia) Superior court, January 2002. - "I know that love does not seek revenge. We do not want a life for a life. Love seeks healing, peace and wholeness. Hatred can never overcome hatred. Only love can overcome hatred and violence. Love is that light. It is that candle that cannot be extinguished by all the darkness and hatred in the world. Judge Goger, that is the reason we are not asking for the death penalty."[8]
Overburdened courts cut-corners on death penalty cases

Stephen Reinhardt, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, dissenting in the decision to allow Thomas Thompson to be executed in California; Reinhardt, S.: "The Supreme Court, The Death Penalty, and the Harris Case" (1992) - "We are presently barely able to handle our current caseload properly .... We are always looking for new fast-track procedures -- which means less careful, less thorough review of cases on the merits. ... [Soon] not only will we not be able to handle those death penalty cases properly, but we will not, in all likelihood, be able to handle any of our cases in a manner that is consistent with the standards that have traditionally marked the federal courts."[25]
Killing in any form victimizes all of humankind

[19] John Donne (1572-1631), a Jacobean poet and preacher. "Meditation XVII: No man is an island...". 1624 - "All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." In other words, the death of a fellow human kills a part of all of us, and, therefore, the death penalty kills a part of all of us.
Unquestioned guilt does not carry risk of wrongful execution.

There is often no doubt of the guilt of an individual. The evidence may be obvious, with clear DNA testing, witnesses, and a guilty plea from the murderer. In these instances, there is no risk of executing the innocent, making this argument irrelevant. When there is room for doubt, this should be weighed into the equation. Therefore, the concerns of executing an innocent person must be approached on an individual basis.
Mistaken convictions have not translated into wrongful executions

Michael Nevin, Freelance Journalist. "Death Decisions". The American Daily. 8 Apr. 2004 - "Several myths about the death penalty have been reported but continue to be debunked upon closer examination. The Liebman study at Columbia University, 'Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973-1995,' released its results in 2000 claiming serious flaws in the system, including a high 'error' rate. It was later revealed that the misleading 'error' included any issue requiring further review by a lower court, even when the court upheld the sentence. The 23-year study found no cases of mistaken executions. The numerous appeals in capital cases demonstrate the extraordinary adherence to due process. The fallacy that innocent people are being executed cannot be validated, and it is intellectually dishonest for opponents of the death penalty to perpetrate this myth. The death penalty in America is undoubtedly one of the most accurately administered criminal justice procedures in the world."
Some risk of executing the innocent must be tolerated

G. Edward Griffin in The Great Prison Break - "If we design a legal system that will be so generous to the suspect that there is absolutely no possibility of unjustly convicting that one out of ten thousand defendants who, in spite of overwhelming evidence, is really innocent, then we have also designed a legal system that is utterly incapable of convicting the other 9999 about whose guilt there is no mistake."[9]
Wrongful convictions can be fixed with better prosecutors

Peter Bronson. "Death Penalty Guards What is Valued Most". International Herald Tribune. 8 Mar. 2001 - "American media, already biased against capital punishment, made a sensation of stories from Chicago about wrongful prosecution. The governor of Illinois declared a moratorium on executions. Most of the stories did not say, however, that the "innocence" was often technical. More than half the "innocent" defendants were later convicted. And malfeasance by prosecutors does not mean the death penalty is wrong, it means Illinois needs better prosecutors."