BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Neither individuals nor corporations should be permitted to make unlimited contributions

To limit the ability of any person or a group, to influence a democratic political process is rather undemocratic and discriminatory. Groups should to be able to express their voice, and attempt to influence politics. Any form of limitation of that is an infringement of their rights as citizens in a democratic country. Limiting contributions could equally be used to achieve a partisan advantage. The Tillman Act banning corporate contributions to campaigns in 1907 is a good example. It was sponsored by the South Carolina senator Tillman who wanted to embarrass President Roosevelt for his heavily reliance on corporate funding in his 1904 election campaign. Tillman often bragged about his role in vote frauds; thus, revealing his bill was less about public good and more to gain partisan advantage.[1] This was repeated a couple of times since, despite the numerous regulatory bills that have been passed. According to Smith’s research, the effect of campaign-finance regulations has been to help people who passed them and to strengthen special interest, rather than to cleanse American politics of the influence of self-interested factions. Money is the means by which those who lack talents or other resources with direct political value are able to participate in politics beyond voting. This reform favour people and corporations skilled and able to afford political advertising over those skilled in other building homes or other fields with no media influence. Thus, the reform undermines efforts for equal access to the political arena by restricting campaign contributions. Data analysis of the last three elections also shows that campaign –finance regulations are of little value. Many scholars, such as Stephen Ansolabehere, James Snyder, and John de Figueiredo, believe that it is not the contributions that corrupt politicians, therefore, limiting contributions will not tackle the problem of corruption. Legislators’ votes usually depend on own beliefs and preferences of their voters and their parties and contributions have no detectable effects on legislative behaviour.[2] The past two elections at which Obama won over better known and funded leaders like Hillary Clinton and Romney who did not lack funds shows that support for ideology was more important than funds. [1] Smith, Bradley. "The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 46-62. P.52 [2] Smith, 2011, P.54
In regards to free speech, corporations should have the same rights as individuals if they are spending money on the campaigns.

The rules under which an individual citizen operate are different from those of corporations and should remain that way. Corporations and individuals are two completely different entities and they represent different interests. While an individual accounts for her interests, a company represents a large number of people. In addition, difference in the size of individual and corporate campaign contributions is usually quite significant.     Despite increasing number of individual contributions, the donations from large interest groups, such as corporations, often exceeds sums from individuals as in 2000 and 2001- by $176 million and &171 million respectively. Empirical evidence suggests that large sums from corporations almost never buys votes but access to policy-makers at key moments of policymaking after campaigns which has serious implications on the levels of corruption.[1] While individuals often contribute as an act of democratic participation, the interest groups donate money in campaigns as investment. Therefore, the rules regulating them should be different.Reforms like the BCRA that limit donations from corporations and unions enable individual contributions and minimizes the role and influence of interest groups. [1] Franz, Michael. "The Interest Group Response to Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011, 2011. 66-83. P.70
Further reforms would create a level playing field

Even under the most radical proposals for reform, loopholes will exist and enable candidates to spend more or reach their audiences through alternative means. This was precisely the kind of development which led reformers to want to close the soft-money loophole. As with the tax system, the more elaborate the regulation, the more obscure and distorting the ways that are adopted to get around it. There is actually a higher turnover in public office than some critics of the present campaign finance systems would like to admit. Retirements, scandals, and careful allocation of party resources make turnover possible under a variety of scenarios. Turnover also has significant negative effects, as critics of term limits have pointed-out. The more often new officeholders begin their jobs the steeper the "learning curve" for a new Congress or other legislative body becomes. Moreover, the effect for challengers could be different. Finance limitations benefit the most popular candidates who already have a large base of support. Political minorities, newcomers, and outcasts will find it difficult to reach enough people to raise the money they need through many small contributions. The financial limitations further limit the possibilities for such campaigns in the future.
Stopping super PACs would place an emphasis on actual issues rather than politicians selling themselves.

Even the most radical campaign finance reform proposals have yet to eliminate corporate or union contributions. Short of such bans, the potential for large organizations to swamp the donations of individual voters still exists. Additionally, limitations on the voice of unions, businesses and special interest groups are another form of potential infringement on the rights of free speech and assembly. Who is to say that a union member’s contribution to their organization’s political action committee is not significant speech comparable to the individual gesture they make when they donate to a candidate themselves? It is reasonable that union members or shareholders choose to trust their leaders to use their money in order to best advance their interests.
Anonymity increases the distortive effects of money in American politics.

Releasing the names of individual people who have contributed to a campaign will in no way indicate what interests were at play in creating a particular political campaign ad or strategy. Moreover, this is at best an argument against propagandizing political ads, not one for releasing the names of people who financially donated to that ad. The campaign finance reform failed to achieve political equality and does not affect wealthy donors or prominent candidates. Often, the most authentic grassroots candidates and campaigns are burdened by such regulations. In 2000, Mac Warren ran for Congress in Texas and spent just $40, 000, half of his money. 2 pieces of the literature failed to contain the required notice that the literature was paid for by the committee and his campaign was fined by $1,000.[1] [1] Smith, Bradley. "The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 46-62. P.59
Further campaign finance reform is simply unrealistic and too ambitious.

Although it may not be immediately apparent to the average TV-watcher who is funding these campaigns, the importance of releasing the names of funders is to allow investigative journalists to conduct research on these names and draw together any conclusions the public may need to know about who is funding candidates. This also applies to other techniques that corporations may employ to get around publicity. Nevertheless, there is a much better chance that the dots will be connected for the public if the names of donors are released.
Anonymity Ensures that Campaigning Rises above Identity Attacks.

It is exactly because certain organizations have particular interests that it is important to reveal when they fund Issue Ads or campaign initiatives[1]. People hold these biases and views of organizations like the National Rifle Association for a reason. If the involvement of this organisation invokes suspicion in a conscientious voter, then that voter has the right to be alerted about that suspicion. [1] McIntire, Mike. "The Secret Sponsors." New York Times 02 Oct 2010, n. pag. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/weekinreview/03mcintire.html?partner=r...
The internet does not need additional rights to those in the real world

The right to be forgotten is premised on the idea that internet requires additional rights beyond those in the real world. Offline there is no right to demand that people do not to talk about or show photos of your embarrassing moments. Provided that there is no privacy breach, once something is out in public, you cannot take it back. There is no rule enabling you to be forgotten in real life, even if things you have done harm you. Why then do rules have to be different for the internet? In 21st century the internet has become an integral part of our lives and of human communication that it is in fact just another reality for us. We do the same things there as we do in real life – socialise, engage in our hobbies etc. The only difference is that the internet provides us with greater opportunities, such as reaching more people, but that does not change the principle that human interaction online is pretty much the same as offline. If there is no right to be forgotten in real life, there should not be one in the digital one.
This right relieves people of the need to act responsibility online

Having a right to be forgotten means that people can be less responsible about what they share and how they act on the internet. Knowing that they can always remove all trace of what they did relieves people of the necessity to consider the consequences of what they are doing online. This is especially true for young adults: they often post unflattering information, such as pictures of them drunk or half-nude, or write offensive comments for the pay-out of immediate popularity in their peer group. However, what also prevents them from doing this is thinking about how that might affect them in the future. When they know that after some time they can delete their digital trace completely there is nothing preventing them from acting irresponsibly in hope of popularity. Such irresponsible behaviour then puts a burden on the state to fix the mess by applying and overseeing the right to be forgotten.
What seems like irrelevant information now might serve justice in the future

People’s digital footprint, though of no public interest at the moment, might be useful in the future. It is a common practice in courts to investigate a person’s character or motives to check for their probability of committing a crime. Photos, videos, comments and blogs can shed light on these issues should the person be investigated under law. For instance, racist or sexist youtube comments might be of use in a trial where a defendant denies his/her actions were a result of racial or gender hatred; blogs, photos and videos a person posts and shares, and their internet searches can serve to assess what the person is like. Digital footprints can be used not only to sentence people, but also to prove their innocence. Given that discerning people’s motives and a character is a vital part of the legal process that is also very elusive, having access to their online behaviour is very useful. Digital information thus can be a useful tool to bring about justice and the right to be forgotten would forgo this opportunity as people could just delete everything about themselves.
It is unfair for people to suffer for silly past mistakes

People put up all those unflattering things about themselves online without being forced to. Those are true, even if not full, representations of them. But that one-sided representation is exactly how the person wanted to be seen. They always have an option of showcasing a better image of themselves (through photos, videos, blogs, etc.) online, but nobody owes them the right to undo something they themselves freely shared. It might be a mistake they realise later on, but mistakes do not create a right to erase everything about that mistake. Nothing in real worlds works like that – you might have made a mistake by getting to drunk at a company Christmas party, but you can't insist on co-workers pretending that never happened and not telling anyone. Moreover, there is plenty of information about how to act on the internet [5]. So we should not grant such a right to someone who did not learn how to act on the internet - they'll have to learn the hard way.
People need protection against harmful information posted by others

It all boils down to personal action. People who act embarrassingly in parties should not be surprised that they can be filmed. Likewise, the ‘Star Wars kid’ left the copy of a video in his high school’s film studio where it was found by other teenagers. Even people who become victims of revenge porn at the very beginning were not acting according with good judgement because they themselves organised sexual acts to be filmed or photographed and then given to other people, whom they could have not even known well. Expressing bad judgement does not incur responsibilities on other people and companies to provide you with rights, when other people are doing nothing illegal by re-posting your public material or your public actions. Moreover, in cases of potential violation of laws, legislation can still be enacted without any kind of Right to be forgotten - California has passed a law combatting revenge porn [9]. It might not be perfect but that is because the issue is pretty novel and in time we’ll learn to deal with it better.
People suffer disproportional consequences on the internet

It is not true that people cannot manage consequences from their action online. It might only seem so but that is because the issues around personal data have emerged relatively recently, so we are still learning to deal with them. Individuals are learning how to manage their personal data online responsibly to make sure such humiliating situations do not occur. There are resources and programmes on how to talk to children about using the internet and other digital devices, including sexting, responsibly [11]. The same way, there are and should be calls for the society to be considerate towards victims of personal data abuse and be less abusive online.
The internet does not need additional rights to those in the real world

The internet is different from reality since the magnitude of consequences you might suffer is much greater. While there might be a school laughing at you over something in real life, on the internet it might be the whole world. We accept ridicule and embarrassment in real life not just because it happens, but also because the effect is not so overwhelming in the majority of cases. People get bored of the news and stop talking, while in the digital era new people can always find you and laugh at you – memories fade, photos and videos online do not. So internet is different from the real life and requires new rules. Moreover, the right to be forgotten is not applicable to the real life not because of a principle, but because we cannot enforce it. We can’t delete people’s memories. But we can delete information online.
This right relieves people of the need to act responsibility online

We expect people to want to use the right to be forgotten mostly when the information on the web is actually hurting them. That means that, in the most common scenario, people would face negative consequences before they can use the right, otherwise why bother one-self with engaging the legal system? However a lack of responsibility is not a charge that can be levied at everyone, often they just could not foresee the consequences. Being responsible is premised on the idea that you know the results of your actions. When you do not and cannot know them – because maybe that photo will be a problem in 10 years – no amount of thinking about an issue is going to make it better.
What seems like irrelevant information now might serve justice in the future

People’s digital footprint, though it might be indicative of who a person is, is not a perfect representation of them or of their entire character. People act differently on the internet behind a screen, and sometimes some anonymity, than in real life because they feel free of social norms. But in real life social norms exist and people adhere to them, meaning that their internet activity cannot be directly linked to their real life actions.  Finally, we cannot expect people to constantly leave personal data on the internet, which means we cannot get a consistent view of a person’s character or their personal development. E.g. someone’s leaving a racist comment 10 years ago does not mean they are still racist now. All this is not just useless for the judicial process; it can actually harm justice by giving false representations of people, which will lead to unfair convictions (or unfair acquittals). For instance, the defence in the famous Trayvon Martin case used digital photos of Trayvon smoking weed or posing as a gangster to present him as a thug and a threat, even though these photos were typical of how young people present themselves, and had no connection to the actual crime [12].
It is unfair for people to suffer for silly past mistakes

People make silly mistakes, especially when they are young. The age from which you can join Facebook is 13 and pretty much anyone can post videos to Youtube, run a blog or post comments. It is then no surprise that people can leave unflattering information about themselves that at that moment they considered to be worth posting. However, this is just a one-sided representation of a person, because many good things cannot be well represented online, e.g. nobody posts a video of oneself working hard. Nevertheless, this one-sided representation can have very damaging consequences to a person. For instance, a well-known case is of Stacy Snyder who was refused a teaching certificate by her university because of a picture of her as a drunken pirate on myspace.com, and not because she was a bad student [4]. More importantly, current measures to delete information might not be enough, as digital information stays in internet archives, social media archives (such as profileengine.com), or can just be reposted by people on other sites and their own social media pages. Given this and the fact that these are not who people truly are, it is unfair to deny them the right to erase things that damage their reputation.
People need protection against harmful information posted by others

People cannot control information that others post about them, for instance embarrassing photos from parties. Even if the original source came from people themselves, they cannot delete this information if it has been shared by other people on their social media channels. For example, Ghyslain Raza’s video of himself goofing around with a golf stick pretending to be in Star Wars, was uploaded by his classmates without his consent [6]. While the video went viral without Ghyslain being able to delete all of its appearances at different sites, he himself suffered merciless bullying online and in real life [7]. There even are people who exploit people’s inability to delete embarrassing content relating to them online. ‘Revenge porn’, which is uploading private material of sexual nature of ex-partners online in an effort to humiliate them, is especially hard to delete and prosecute [8]. Since embarrassing information can end up online without a person’s consent and is very difficult to delete using current policy measures, the right to be forgotten is the only way to help these people.
People suffer disproportional consequences on the internet

The internet magnifies the problem of embarrassing personal data and makes it very hard for people to manage the consequences. In real life, though we suffer consequences for our embarrassing behaviour (or behaviour others think is embarrassing), we can manage it easier, e.g. by talking to the people involved or as a final resort moving. The internet means the humiliating material is rapidly exposed to millions of people around the world, meaning that people can face humiliation anywhere without an ability to manage it. There are even cases of young people taking their lives after bullying and cyber-bullying that followed information about them being posted online. The most famous case is that of teenager Amanda Todd, who committed suicide after half-nude photos were posted online – she could not escape ridicule even after she moved schools, because photos remained online [10]. Because real life actions are not enough to manage consequences of humiliating personal data, new ways suitable for the digital sphere have to be created, and that way is the right to be forgotten.
There has been a serious inequality in the funding of the UN budget.

The phrase “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile” is appropriate here. It is noteworthy that Russia has a Security Council veto, but does not even appear in the top 15 nations contributing to the budget. The UN has become dependent on the USA and other industrialized nations to foot an enormous amount of the bill for UN operations. While the proportions of other states’ economies are markedly smaller, other nations sometimes reap far more of the rewards of UN existence than they contribute - “The United States is far and away the biggest single contributor to the U.N. system. In 2006, the total U.S. contributions came to at least $2.7 billion — and that excludes the private sector, which by most independent estimates, draws most of its $1.5 billion in U.N. contributions from U.S. sources.” [1]   Should the US remain a consistent donor and allow itself to be asked for more and more as the UN budget becomes more bloated, or should it assert itself and say that, in real dollars, a line must be drawn?   [1] Russel, George. “The U.N.: Even More Expensive Than It Looks” 06/11/2008 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,448125,00.html improve this
The United Nations needs the United States.

The United Nations is a voluntary body and reflects global realities, including the role of the USA as the dominant superpower. Without the consent of the USA, the UN can achieve nothing, and active US opposition to the UN could destroy the organisation along with all its potential for good. It is better for the UN to accept US demands for budgetary restraint and reform than to provoke the USA by unrealistic demands into withdrawing from its councils.This means that the UN should reflect the views of the United States as a result "Policy of the United Nations should be based on three fundamental questions: Are we advancing the American interests? Are we upholding American values? Are we being responsible towards for the American taxpayer dollars?" According to Josh Rogin "Unfortunately, right now, the answer to all three questions is no." [1] [1] Rogin, Josh. ” House Republicans' next target: the United Nations” 26/01/2011 http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/26/house_republicans_next_target_the_united_nations improve this