Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission should be overturned

Thank you for your astute argument, Con. First, I'd like to point out that my opponent and I do agree on the facts of both cases--that we are talking about unlimited, indirect donations to organizations unaffiliated directly with politicians--though there are several important caveats to note. My opponent mentioned "non-profits," but this ignores an important distinction. In tandem with Super PACs are "social-welfare groups"--e.g., Karl Rove's Crossroads G.P.S. and Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, who are now allowed to engage in "express advocacy," advocating for one candidate over another, provided that their organizations are not strictly purposed on political advocacy. Of course, the fact that these organizations need not disclose their donors is a loophole, where candidates need not be working directly with these organizations. Rove, for instance, has been a Fox contributor for years, after serving in the Bush White House; it's assumed, in light of his past, that he is going to raise funds for Republican candidates. So the question to you is this: why should social-welfare groups which aren't truly dedicated to social welfare causes be allowed to operate tax-free without disclosing their donors? Finally, you mentioned that foreign influence of elections is illegal under current law. That's true, but there is an important caveat. There have been concerns in the wake of CUFC that foreign companies with U.S. subsidiaries would be able to spend unlimited sums in U.S. elections. The law you cited does not mention foreign-owned companies headquartered and incorporated in the US. The decision punted on this aspect, though, which opens the floodgates to CUFC being used as precedent in a later decision for allowing these companies to make unlimited donations to Super PACs or social-welfare groups. Onto your arguments: 1. Your case about "taxation without representation" misses the mark, because corporations are not an entity enshrined in the Constitution. You act as though, without the ability to directly influence elections, corporations have no say. That is patently false. Individuals who serve on the boards of these corporations are able to vote, to speak their voices, and to volunteer for the candidate of their choice, and still would under the system that I advocate. The distinction between the current system and my system is that they wouldn't have the excessive leverage that they do now because money wouldn't be deemed speech. They have the same power and the same voice as I--a non-business owner--do. Why should owning a corporation afford them a new right? You didn't challenge my claim that money isn't--that, if we accept that it is, people with more money have more speech. To me, that is the ultimate injustice. You are viewing this debate strictly through the prism of corporations, but are failing to account for the ramifications of allowing this freedom, have not cited the basis for it--as the Constitution does not afford such a broad definition of speech--and are ignoring that, if even if we accept that corporations are people, and that money is speech (and I don't, but I will entertain the possibility for a moment, for the sake of argument), there are reasonable restrictions on freedoms. The Constitution not only included vague language--general welfare, "unreasonable search and seizure", et al--but the framers left open a process for the people to amend it, largely to protect themselves against a government run amok. The polling I provided to you in my last argument is clear: the American public is wary of corporate influence in elections and in politics. Therefore, continuing to defend CUFC is taking an absolutist stance that displays apathy toward the effective legalization of bribery. I showed you the data on that, too. 2. I reject the premise of this argument, as it places the blame entirely on voters---many of whom are the victims of this decision. Essentially what you are doing is asking them to filter through the lies they have been inundated with for years--much of it through 30-second advertisements, many which I pointed out earlier are inherently wrong and deceptive (which you didn't challenge)--and seek a different route than has been offered. But how can they do that when there you will hardly find a viable candidate who isn't taking Wall Street money? The President has condemned CUFC, but he himself took $14 million in donations from Wall Street in 2012, and $28.2 million in 2008. Think about this: a lot of these donations came from large financial institutions that crashed the economy, were bailed out on our dollar, and then paid themselves several million dollar bonuses. The assumption that being informed would thwart this problem is flawed. To be informed is to know about the President's ties to Wall Street, as well as Romney's, whose biggest donors were Goldman, JP Morgan, Bank of America, etc. As an informed voter, what can I do? Should I choose the "worst of the evils?" Should I vote for Green Party nominee Jill Stein, who stood hardly a chance at winning because she wasn't even in the national debates? I'm not suggesting that there isn't a responsibility for Americans to become more active and informed; but there isn't much they can do when there simply is not a viable option--because candidates are driven toward monied interests, in light of the statistics. Moreover, I would argue that being informed is not only exceptionally difficult in the world where 30-second ads trump all, where the economy is failing and many Americans need to take on second or third jobs to make ends meet, and where the media is, simply put, not doing its job at pointing out the truth--what economist Paul Krugman called a "cult of centrism." Even amid the recent debt ceiling debates, for instance, the media portrayed this not as extortion--where one side was literally threatening to blow up the global economy if they couldn't get their way on a law that has been passed by both Houses, signed by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court, and that survived an election--but as a debate between two sides. Furthermore, a majority of the viewpoints are even presented from the right-wing perspective, largely to placate corporate donors. Consider a media study that a majority of guests on Sunday morning talk shows--40% to be exact--were conservative, relative to 29% who were liberal. Further data indicated that most discussions took a right-wing tilt, with Fox News being the worst, with 47% of their Sunday journalists expressing ideologically conservative views. Would you expect much more from a network, though, that recently allowed John Stossel to argue that "government handouts" led women to have more babies? That's not only factually wrong and deeply ideological, but highly sexist and offensive . The overarching point is that, in the absence of a true gatekeeper--and without viable options--those with the most money have the most power and the most influence. 3. There are a number of logical fallacies in this argument. First, as I pointed out, many people who operate these organizations--e.g., Karl Rove--do so through loopholes that benefit their own interests. The notion that I would advocate banning advertisements is reductio ad absurdum, since most inherently lack the quid-pro-quo nature that CUFC allows for--that is my main concern with this decision. Advertisements are protected under free speech, while money is not (or should not be). The assertion that corporations can't vote misses the point since, as I pointed out, the individuals operating them would have as much say under my system as they would a regular system. Also, you have casually approached my figures as if they're assertions, when they are factual. The data I provided--which you haven't challenged--indicates that most of the time, candidates with the most money win--which is spurred by a quid pro quo. Would you defend those outcomes under the banner of free speech, when that absolutist definition shuts out the voice of so many? 4. My opponent has not only misunderstood my argument, but his allusion to Hitler is not well-taken. First, note that he only mentions shareholders. The bulk of my claim is that, by law, boards are exempted from the same degree of liability as an operator of, say, a sole proprietorship. Therefore, they are preemptively treated differently than would individuals, so why should we brand as people? This preference for corporations manifests itself in to scandals such as the one with HSBC. Is it spurious that an individual has never been deemed "too big to fail," yet many corporations are? Why hasn't the federal government ever bailed out an individual? Would the Federal Reserve purchase my bad assets? 5. My argument was not the least bit hypocritical: first, I'm not indicting corporations, but rather the legality of quid pro quo. Second, I want corporations to prosper, but they, ipso facto, are not the key to job growth: consumers are. In no way are the policies they're promoting synonymous with their ability to create jobs--oil tax breaks don't create jobs. Corporate profits are at all-time highs, as are stock portfolios. Corporations are not suffering, but average Americans are. http://mediamatters.org... http://www.politifact.com... http://online.wsj.com... http://voxxi.com... http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com... https://aattp.org... http://www.npr.org...