Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission should be overturned

Thanks to Pro for starting a debate on this topic! Good luck to you too!I'll start my discussion with a brief overview of Citizen's United v. FEC, and SpeechNow.org v. FEC's decisions. I'll limit my discussions to what Citizen's United and SpeechNow.org did NOT do.Citizens United 1.Citizens United DID NOT allow unlimited contributions on the part of Corporate entities or Unions. The contributions of individuals to Candidates are still limited. Furthermore, Super-PAC's are not permitted to directly contribute to a Campaign or Candidate, and must restrict their spending to political ads that advance their own agenda. In fact, neither Corporations nor Non-profits are allowed to directly contribute to any campaign or candidate, and must spend their money on what are called "independent expenditures." [1]2.Citizens United DID NOT open the door for Foreign Corporations to influence American Elections. US Code 2 441E: (a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for— (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make— (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election; (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434 (f)(3) of this title); or (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national. (b) “Foreign national” defined As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means— (1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611 (b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or (2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101 (a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8. [2]2 441E was not addressed in the Citizens United ruling, and any corporation that may be foreign owned is required to utilize only profits earned in the US if it wishes to engage in independent expenditures. SpeechNow.org v. FEC1.SpeechNow.org DID NOT allow unlimited contributions to Corporations or Candidates. It did, however, allow unlimited contributions to non-profit organizations.Now that I have cleared up what the two cases did not do, I will lay out why they should remain the precedent.1.If corporations are not alike to people, why do we tax them like people? The United States was founded upon the principal of no taxation without representation. Corporations exist, thrive, grow, wither and die, and labor for their survival much like people themselves do. And furthermore, elected officials make decisions that impact them just as much as they make decisions that impact people. Because Corporations do not have the ability to vote, limiting their ability to spend money to support or come out in support of a candidate who may pass the laws they desire is tantamount to discrimination against an entity that is affected by the policies of the government. Considering no corporation may directly contribute to any campaign, while individuals themselves may do so, it hardly amounts to giving corporations the same rights as individuals if you allow them to spend money on independent expenditures. 2. The United States political system is meant to exist upon a foundation of informed voters. If people cannot inform themselves by independently researching and examining the candidates at hand, and instead are content to take the word of non-profits from both sides of the aisle, then the problem is not so much the money that allows the non-profits to spread their point of view, but rather the laziness and failure of the citizens to fulfill their duties as citizens. The US has one of the lowest voter participation rates in the developed world. Why blame the non-profits for helping shape your view when you yourself are content to let them? The blame lies not on their shoulders, but yours.3. The two decisions discussed by my opponent permit unlimited independent expenditures only, and in the case of SpeechNow.org, permit unlimited contributions to non-profits only. This leads me to the reasoning behind the ruling of Citizens United: "By definition, independent expenditures are “not made in concert or cooperation with or at the request or suggestion of such candidate, the candidate’s authorized political committee, or their agents, or a political party committee or its agents.” 2 U.S.C. § 431(17)" [3] As such, "'[t]he absence of prearrangement and coordination of an expenditure with the candidate or his agent . . . alleviates the danger that expenditures will be given as a quid pro quo for improper commitments from the candidate.” Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 908 (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 47)" This leads us to the vital conclusion reached by Citizens United, which is: “[W]e now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 909." [3]The logic here is undeniable. Non-profits do not and by law cannot make any expenditures while conspiring with the candidates or campaigns themselves. Their expenditures represent their own opinions, and no one elses. Are we now to institute bans on advertising then? Are companies no longer going to be allowed to advertise their products, since advertising shapes people's perceptions of the world, arguably moreso than political ads? Should we not then ban campaigns from advertising themselves as well, for the campaign with the most contributions, by my opponent's logic, will win 93 times out 100 for the House, and 94 times out 100 for the Senate? The simple fact remains that in the absence of an actual right to vote, entities that are affected by government policies must be permitted some voice come election year. To deny entities affected by government policies any voice would be discrimination in it's most basic form. 4. My opponent misunderstands the "corporate veil." What he speaks of is limited liability, that is, protection for shareholders, who make no decisions in the operation of a company, from legal liability in the event of fraud or illegal activities taking place in the company. How can we expect people who receive only the balance sheets and profit margins to know what is happening inside management? And how can we hold liable people who had no control over the activities being conducted, nor foreknowledge of them? There is no dichotomy here, no preferential treatment for shareholders, given the fact that they had no way of knowing anything about the actions the company they were supporting was taking. Do you blame the citizens of Germany for Hitler's Final Solution? Is it right to do so? I would argue no, it is wrong to blame those who had no way of knowing what was happening.I address this because my opponent is trying to establish corporations as non-material entities, Legal contracts only. But the contracts are between individuals, and indeed are not shareholders individuals? Are they not doubly affected by government policies, first on the individual front, and second on the corporate front? I would argue then, that allowing them some form of voice on both fronts is not preferential, but rather, in the interest of freedom and equality of opportunity, required.5. My opponent indicts Corporations as promoting inequity in the economy. And yet, during the 2012 election for president, the number one concern was the Economy, jobs. [4] Jobs come from the Private Sector and Public sector, but most people don't like taxes, and raising taxes is what would be required if the jobs were generated in the public sector. Why, then, indict Corporations on one hand for their supposed control over elections, and on the other beg for their help in the generation of prosperity? Is this not hypocritical? If you want those jobs to remain in existence, you should be desiring corporations and companies to thrive, and therefore, you should be wanting politicians who would promote job growth. Politicians alone cannot promote job growth or economic growth, they must also heed the advice of those in the industries themselves. It is hypocritical, therefore, to indict corporations for supposed inequity and vote in politicians who would do those corporations damage, and then cry foul when jobs are lost.In conclusion, Citizens United must remain precedent. It protects the freedom of speech of entities that are directly and indirectly affected by government policies, corporations and non-profits. It upholds the longstanding ban on direct contributions to candidates from non-profits and corporations, thus preventing corruption. It represents no real danger to the American Citizen.[1]http://www.policymic.com... [2]http://www.law.cornell.edu...[3]http://www.fec.gov...[4]http://www.people-press.org...