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

"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."I said this in Round 2, but this was a misstype. I meant to say that an example of a limit of free speech in campaigning would be limiting what the content a candidate can voice.C1: Corporations and Other Large Insitutions that are private should not get all the equal rights as peopleIn the legal since, corporations are people, because they have some of the same basic rights. However, in the COMMON SENSE terms, corporations are not people. Here are some things to consider:1) Can Corporations Live Forever?2) Can Corporations Be at multiple locations at once?3) Would you let your daughter marry a corporation?So, I will concede that corporations is an assembly, but not a person itself. However, that is not the resolution of this debate. We must keep in mind what a real corporation is though:Corporations are vehicles for liquidity; they give an incorporator the ability to raise capital for business operations by selling shares of the corporation to a limited class of investors or to the public at large. A corporation’s sole goal is to enhance its profits, thereby inducing more investment and increasing its liquidity. [1]So, a corporation may spend money, but this needs to be limited in a true democratic election.C2: Spending is Not Speech, Rights of Spending is unfair in some casesSpeech is not an item, but an individualized human expression ofideas or information not dependent on any exchange. [2]Spending and having money is purchasing power. Money is property and a medium of exchange. Talking is a form of speech."Why shouldn’t I as a shareholder if I agree with the other shareholders get to do the exact same thing?"I agree, an assembly of people deserves that basic rights that people doHOWERVER, we have to be prudent. It is unfair to give them full rights in some cases. With a large pool of money, assemblies become powerful. Then, in the case of corporations, are dangerous to the nation. Thus, corporations can become detrimental to the Democratic process by influencing elections grossly unfairly. You, a shareholder, can do the same thing as your interests, YOU can donate to political campaigns. Like my example of a man yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, a right has to be limited in some cases to promote the public interest. Different content, same concept.C3: Spending by Corporations and Other Groups needs to be limited [3]As I have already said in R2, Corporate Profits HUGELY outnumber the amounts that politicians fundraise. Therefore, the spending needs to be limited. If you can recall my ExxonMobil example, ExxonMobil made $45 billion in profits in 2008. The Corporation wants to make more money, see my definition in C1. Obama raised $750 million in the same year, a RECORD amount for a Presidential campaign. ExxonMobil, as well as other corporations can hugely influence the political process of a nation, a detrimental implication. ExxonMobil alone made 60 times more profits than the Obama team. With $1.6 trillion in Corporation's hands, they should not be allowed to detrimentally affect the nation through its government.This is why campaign finance reform is needed, to level the playing field, and make REAL individuals like you and me have an equal chance of communicating to politicians as well as corporations and other groups should, corporations should not get an edge. Level the election field! This is a Democracy, not a plutocracy! Plus, there are currently no campaign finance laws, besides disclosure laws, which are ever more increasingly ignored. [4]------------------------Money Spent Per VoteIt is very common for the candidates with more money become victorious. In 2008, Obama "spent" an average of $7.39 a vote. McCain "spent" $5.78 a vote. This is typical. [8] "they are strict enough" (the laws)There are no campaign finance limits on the national level anymore. [5]Conclusions:We need Campaign Finance reform, the best idea is probably full public financing to ensure fair spending. With no limits on corporate spending, corporations have the ability to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns of politicians, which leaves open a very large gate to bribery. To maximize equality in elections, to minimize bribery, to give ALL INDIVIDUALS equal opportunities to communicate to politicians not just corporations, campaign finance reform is the most democratic method to work elections. The politicians work for US, not for CORPORATE AMERICA.Comparing it to my last example;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]http://www.youtube.com... http://hypervocal.com...http://www.supportows.org...http://act.credoaction.com...http://sunshinestandard.org...http://money.cnn.com... http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com...YOUTUBE.COM http://en.wikipedia.org...