Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission should be overturned

As this is the final round, I will stick to summing up my arguments, and why my opponent has not undermined them. However, I will address some of his observations.First, the "ad hominem attacks." In my arguments, I can point to one specific moment when I made a direct comment on you, yourself, and not your position. That was the "you're making a fool of yourself" comment. Now, this was out of line, and I apologize. However, the rest of my arguments were hardly uncouth, let alone vitriolic. Next, the animosity. I have no animosity towards you. If you are, perhaps, referring to my comments on the belief that someone else has the right to determine what constitutes enough taxation on another person, I can't help you there. I believe that system of tenents to be arrogant, selfish, and prideful, and called them such. Now, I will move to summing up my arguments. As I have clearly shown, the sentiment "no taxation without representation" applied to businesses just as much as individuals. If we fail to stay true to that sentiment in our own laws, what good are they? Corporations are affected just as much as individuals by policy, something my opponent has failed to discount, and cannot discount, as it is an accepted and time-tested aspect of both Economic and Political Theory and fact. However companies cannot vote. Therefore, independent expenditures are permissible because it provides the company to advertise it's views, while still leaving the decision in the hands of the voters. This is another aspect my opponent cannot disprove. In the end, the conscious decisions of the voters determine the winner. My opponent brings the fact that the campaign with the most contributions tends win the election into the debate. However, as we have already established that Corporations and Non-profits may not directly contribute or indirectly contribute to the campaign, and may only advertise their beliefs, this point is irrelevant. None of the money in those campaigns came from corporations or non-profits. As to the taxes paid by corporation heads, this too is irrelevant. If we are going to demonize people who set up charity foundations because we arrogantly claim that we have the right to more of their income than they already voluntarily distribute through their charity, and involuntarily contribute in taxes, then what use is there in setting up those charities? All my opponent has to point to are conspiracy theories as to the greed of the rich. He can neither prove that those charities are set up for the personal gain of the corporation head who created it, nor prove that the corporation head himself is greedy. All my opponent and those who share his position can do is greedily cry for the government to take more money from the corporation head and give it to them. It would appear, then, that Mitt Romney and the rest, who contribute to charities regularly, and set up their own charities and run them for the benefit of others, are far less greedy than those who scramble to take their income from them by force.The number of sources you provided are irrelevant. I can logically show that your positions had no bearing on the topic at hand. I have just done so with the argument regarding the number of direct contributions to campaigns. Considering the one thing all the acts have in common is taxation or duties on imports, and I quoted the Declaration of Independence as well, my opponent's assertion that the American Revolution was triggered by "VIRTUAL representation, not overtaxation" would appear to be incorrect. And notice that never once did I use the word "overtaxation," but rather, I pointed to the implementation taxation and duties without consent or representation in parliament. The US government does this today to Corporations. It imposes taxes without their consent, and it regulates exports and imports. Since Corporations cannot vote, I do not believe they should be able to directly influence elections. That being said, Citizens United does not allow them to directly influence elections, and instead allows them to voice their concerns separately. Stamping that voice out would be un-American, in my view.The crux of your argument, too big to fail, misses the mark as well. Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve, those who allowed businesses to fail and propped others up, are not elected. Rather, they are appointed. The too-big-to-fail position reflects the problem of the revolving door, not campaign contributions. You can have all the credible sources in the world, but when they have no bearing on the topic at hand, they are useless.You did not specify the op-ed pages in particular. You simply referred to WSJ. And considering that WSJ does on occasion publish opinions that are in line with yours, from academics and businessmen alike, your argument is flawed. And even if it wasn't, WSJ is not the only publication out there. If this were an Economic debate, then you committed more errors. Firstly, the people who are now referred to by the public as "Keynesians" are really "Neo-Keynesians," who took some, not all, of Keynes' ideas and merged them with Econometrics and other new advances in Economics. Second, the Keynesians did not accurately predict the crash, nor were they completely accurate on the events. Lest we forget that sub-prime loans are a Keynesian idea, geared towards improving the market by targeting the poor, those who have the highest MPC. Most people think Capitalism failed in the recent recession. It didn't. It worked perfectly. Those corporations who used bad business practices suffered. They were in danger of default, and should have been allowed to default. That would have been Capitalist. Instead, the Government stepped in. That's Keynesianism. Tax cuts do promote growth, this is a fact of Economics and Market theory. De-regulation would bring about the Night-Watchman state, and we were close. However, no one allowed it to run its course. If we had, the "too-big-to-fail" corporations would have gone down, and new ones would have sprung up in their place. And through that experience, businesses would have learned their lesson. People want there to be prosperity only, growth only, ignoring the fact that nature experiences oscillations as a byproduct of it's very constitution. You cannot have only growth, you cannot have only prosperity. Inevitably, the oscillation will arrive. We can minimize the oscillation, but only if we allow the natural system to do its work. That is the belief of the Night-Watchman State, true Smithian Capitalism. As to my "Chicago friends," I made no claim to adhere to them, or any other school. You have constructed a straw man. Aggregate Demand may have been the source of the Depression, but that does not mean it is the sole and driving source of Economic growth. Most crashes in the past have come from, believe it or not, lack of Investment and Savings! This crash was unique because of the circumstances, and making sweeping policies based on the exceptions to the rule is not good practice. And I never referenced austerity at all. You continue to attack that position, yet it was never in my argument. Another straw man.My opponent's position rests upon unproven, irrelevant facts. The crash had nothing to do with Citizens United. It dealt with the problem of the Revolving Door. Bernanke showed favoritism to his alma mater, Goldman Sachs, and let their rivals go down. This is not the work of election contributions, this is the work of the Revolving Door. As such, your whole discussion on this point is moot. Next, your arguments against the history of the phrase "No taxation without representation" and the nature of the American Revolution have been rebutted. You have not shown anything to indicate that the American Revolution had no roots in the effects the British acts had on businesses, and I have shown precisely the opposite. My opponent's discussion of Campaign contributions again misses the mark, because he admits in the very beginning that Citizens United did not allow Corporations or Non-profits to directly or indirectly contribute to the elections. This renders all his discussion on this topic, and all his sources, moot.Lastly, my opponent again brings up an irrelevant discussion, the discussion regarding the tax rates paid by executives. Firstly, not all executives pay the low rates that Mitt Romney does, and Romney does so because of his charitable organizations. His capital gains are taxed in accordance with the IRS tax code, and as such, he is not immune to the reach of taxation. Secondly, this has no bearing on the debate over Citizens United, which deals with campaign contributions.That is the summation of my opponent's argument.My argument is as follows:1) Corporations are affected by policy, and should be allowed to voice their beliefs, and advertise them.2) The voter makes the final decision. He/she can choose to believe the advertisements, or research everything for themselves. Considering the final decision is in their hands, they cannot be considered victims of coercion, but rather victims of their own decisions, and should accept responsibility.3) The sentiments of the American Revolution, the very founding principles of the US, reflect a recognition of the effects the British Acts had on American Businesses. As a result, "No taxation without representation" can be used to describe the situation at hand. Entities affected by Policy should have some voice in the matter.I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic, and hope going forward we can debate more interesting topics. If you believe that Pro has effectively defended his position, vote pro. But if you believe that Con has showed that Citizens United should stand, and does not adversely affect the lot of the American political system, please vote Con. Good luck to my opponent, and thanks to all who read through this debate.