Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission should be overturned

1. You are misrepresenting the history of "taxation without representation." There was no fight against "unreasonable taxation." The taxes, actually, were quite small. The battle was over virtual representation vs direct representation. Colonies could not elect their own representatives, but were governed "virtually" by a Royal Governor from London. There is absolutely no parallel here. Next, you are wrong again when you say that "no one" was enshrined in the Constitution. The press, in fact, was--the only institution the founders mentioned, might I add (which is why it's a travesty that politicians like Diane Feinstein and Peter King are trying to effectively decimate journalism)--was mentioned, as were "the people." You claim that we fought against unreasonable taxation on businesses, but don't you realize that the British crown's taxes did not target businesses? The Tea Act was not a tax on business, but on consumption. Furthermore, your constitutional argument is irrelevant, because if the founding fathers were alive today, they would agree with me. They were highly skeptical of corporate power, and not only devised a rigorous process for incorporation, but prohibited them from influencing elections or policy. Laws of this kind remained in place until roughly 100 years after the Revolutionary War. The founders today would never agree with the notion that corporations are people. Finally, you said that corporate entities are affected "independently of the individuals who make up its board...[...]", and this, I presume, is your argument as to why incorporating ought to afford the additional legal right to influence elections as a "person," under the label of a powerful corporate entity. The counter, of course, is not only that the notion that policy would threaten a corporation's existence is paranoid and nearly laughable--I'd throw it in the same category as people who believe in an absolutist view of the 2nd Amendment in order to thwart "government tyranny"--but nearly irrelevant. First, many executives, shareholders, etc, pay significantly lower tax rates than do average middle-income Americans. Mitt Romney paid 14% on millions in income; GE paid 0%. Payroll taxes alone will tally up a larger tax bill for middle-income people. Second, executives ought to have as much say as average people do, but alas, they have even more because--and I stand by this contention, and will stress it more heavily later--they have more money. This is my fundamental point: corporate money is effectively shredding democracy, and suppressing the demands of the masses. Put aside elections for a moment and answer this: why is CEO compensation deductible? Why is investment income taxed at a lower rate than earned income, allowing the Romney's of the world to pay less than people earning $50,000? Why weren't Wall Street executives prosecuted? Why, during the Fiscal Cliff negotiations, were politicians intent on "reforming (read: cutting) entitlements," but not only didn't consider Big Oil subsidies "entitlements" (but apparently Medicare and Social Security are), but cut taxes, again? Largely, it was because of a "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" that Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform had these politicians sign, where they agreed never to raise taxes under any circumstances. Of course, Norquist has ties to Fannie Mae, internet gambling, and lobbyists. The point that you don't seem to accept is that CUFC solidifies a two-tiered system of justice--with HSBC and friends on one side, and the rest of us on the other. There is overwhelming evidence that the system is bought on a quid-pro-quo basis, yet you defend CUFC on the grounds of "free speech" and "representation." That is why I called your stance absolutist. When a majority of Americans fear the power of corporations--when even conservative states like Texas are considering resolutions calling for a Constitutional Convention to abolish corporate personhood--you're unwilling to entertain the idea. Organizations like WolfPac, spurring civic activism across the country and bringing together people of all political persuasions, is the type of activism that you claim is absent from the discourse. Why, though, is your position that "We the People" should not be able to interpret the Constitution--or better yet, amend it to counteract corporate influence? 2. "Money talks" was not a flip-flop on whether money is speech, but personification attesting to the point that money, ipso facto, is a toxic influence and can--and has--swayed elections. Your argument here--and in your next remark--is inconsistent. Why would you accept restrictions on speech for direct contributions but not indirect contributions? If corporations should be treated as people, why can people donate to campaigns directly, while corporations cannot? You say that any more restrictions would impede the "rights of all" (and I think "all" goes too far). Why would you draw that seemingly arbitrary line? Please clarify your position on the extent to which these rights can be restricted, and why you have drawn the line where you have. 3. Showing you causation is impossible unless I were able to find an e-mail, or even a signed contract, demonstrating allegiance between these aligned forces. Now that I've said that, and pointed out the hilarity in this argument, let me point further to what is not simply a correlation, but a thorough demonstrating of quid pro quo, which sets up a self-reinforcing effect. Answer this: if you're a politician, and you saw that most of your colleagues win by virtue of having raised the most money, why would that not be your goal? Consider this, along with the fact that, as I pointed out in several cases, the policies these politicians promote are directly in line with the interests of corporate America, i.e. thirty years of trickle-down economics, income inequality, and deregulation. It's a simple deduction. Prove to me that this is not the case. Seeing as most Americans--and the founding fathers--agree with me, the burden of proof is on you. Also, when you point out that the figures demonstrate that money doesn't win out 100% of the time, and are therefore irrelevant, I hope you realize that your basis for that ranges from 6-7%, while mine is 93%-94%. Yes, there were cases--say, Karl Rove's investments in 2012 (though he profited immensely nevertheless)--where money didn't win every election. But that's clearly the exception, rather than the rule. I shouldn't need to point out that 93 is greater than 7. 4. Your argument about "free information," again blames the victims. It essentially says to people who have deceived for years, bullied into voting against their own economic interests, "Why are you hitting yourself?" I pointed out earlier that the media is not reporting honestly on these issues. Here's another example: former MSNBC Cenk Uygur (who is referenced several times in my arguments) reported that he left MSNBC--which is widely considered "liberal media"--because he dared to challenge the establishment, and was told to "tone it down." Do you consider that to be evidence of a gatekeeper? Is your argument from this point that people should simply go to the library--or vote for candidates polling at less than 1% nationally (who, by the way, are hardly covered by media outlets--or they simply must suffer? I want more civic activism. I want people to be excited about elections, which is why I'm so proud of the grassroots efforts to overturn CUVC. But I'm unwilling to blame the victims, and to assert that they are simply on their own in determining fact from fiction. There are structural problems that need to be addressed so that we can help these people to make informed decisions--the largest of which is the role of money in elections. 5. Your argument on money is a non sequitur. Though advertisements, funded by money, display the views of a group or even a company promoting a product, there are legal restrictions. For instance, they can't promote illegal activities, engage in slander, etc. It would simply be one more item tacked on to the list. But again, answer this: if money is speech, why not legalize contributions directly to candidates? 6. Again, you have misunderstood my argument and have chosen instead to attack me. I am familiar with "piercing the corporate veil." The argument on liability was that, in order to prosecute a director of a corporation, there is a process of "piercing the veil," while the same is not so for a sole proprietorship or individual, which is an inherent distinction. The main argument on this was "too big to fail," which manifests itself in Wall Street donations to candidates. 7. I never equated the growth of the stock market with the health of the economy. I simply said that corporations are doing fine with record profits, and I challenge you to prove otherwise (and that billions in subsidies to big five oil, the most profitable companies in the world, create jobs), or point to a policy that would disrupt their position. As for the economic arguments, again, you are wrong. It is settled. In fact, Ben Bernanke, Bruce Bartlett, business surveys, the WSJ, and academic research bear out my case that lack of aggregate demand is halting the economy now. In fact, income inequality wasn't as bad as it is now since 1929, and we both know what followed that. Corporations are sitting today on literally trillions in capital that they aren't investing. The policies they are advocating benefit them, not the average American. http://reclaimdemocracy.org... http://reclaimdemocracy.org... http://www.rawstory.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://mediamatters.org...