On balance, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United vs FEC harms the election process

Their first argument is that corporate control causes undue corporate influence over the election process They talk about spending causing an influence I have 2 refutations for this argument 1. An increase in campaign spending means that more people are participating in democracy. The Citizens United Decision recognizes campaign contributions as a form of free speech, so what an increase in campaign donations means is that more people are making posters and flyers, and there is more of a participation in democracy. According to a study done in the Social Science Quarterly, overall, an increase in campaign spending equates to an increase in voter participation, thus strengthening our democracy. 2. This country is run by a capitalist standings. The corporations fairly and equally earned the money, and can spend it any way they want to, so the so called 'influence' over the election is legal, and not harming the election process Their second argument is Their second argument is the decision causes political cynicism and apathy This is completely wrong Candidates are just being supported due to capitalism This is a capitalist society! Their 3rd argument is that corporations spend people's money on causes they don't agree This is completely wrong Shareholders that buy the stock of a company to support the companies ideas. When a corporation sponsors the candidate, they are doing it in their interests, and their ideas, thus shareholders do benefit the corporations' interests. Their 4th argument is that it allows foreign influence in the US elections First of all, there is almost no link BACK to the election process for the foreign policy sub point Second, for the lobbying subpoint, I have 4 refutations 1. Did Citizens United cause companies to be able to lobby? (no.) 2. Does the lobbying negatively impact the election process? 3. The Manhattan Institute has stressed the role that corporations play in providing information to legislators and other public officials. Members of Congress are motivated primarily by the desire to win reelection, and to advance policies that they believe are good for their district, state, or the country. Lobbyists can help them achieve both goals by providing information and expertise on specific matters pertinent to legislation and keeping them informed about how people in their districts or states feel about those matters. 4. According to Mallenbaker.net, corporation lobbying often benefits the society. Leading businesses have aimed to lobby the political process in order to help society. For example, BP's endorsed the climate change levy, Electrolux supporting producer responsibility on electrical goods, and Marks & Spencer's call for more legislation on the use of chemicals. Their 5th argument is that Corporate Personhood is bad However, we have 2 refutation for this 1. We agree that corporations are not people. However, the Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad ruled that corporations have the rights of the people. (emphasis on rights) 2. Our 2nd argument directly refutes this about how corporations have the rights of citizens. Their 6th argument is that there is a problematic vision of free speech that doesn't adequately account for practical harm. Again, our 2nd argument directly refutes this, and We agree that corporations are not people. However, the Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad ruled that corporations have the rights of the people. (emphasis on rights) Their 7th and final main argument is that limits on speech are necessary and good Again, a repeat of contentions Again, our 2nd argument directly refutes this, and We agree that corporations are not people. However, the Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad ruled that corporations have the rights of the people. (emphasis on rights) Thanks and I hope you vote in favor of NEG/CON