People have a right to unlimited spending on their own political speech.

Thank you, SPF, for taking up this argument. I'm a newbie--this is my very first debate on this site, so I look forward to the challenge and hopefully learning a thing or two. To answer questions of clarity, the scope of the term "people" that I invoke is a broad one that includes individuals and organizations. Moreover, I use the term "organizations" in a broad sense to include various sorts of groups, including corporations"both for- and non-profit, volunteer associations, and unions, among others. Contrary to what my opponent has stated, the court has never declared such entities people or persons in a robust, ontological sense of the term. There is indeed a concept known as "corporate personhood," but it is a concept used to facilitate litigation in cases that may involve an organization; otherwise the best thing a party suing a group could do is file a separate case against each and every one of the group"s members, e.g., the shareholders of a for-profit corporation, which is burdensome to say the least. Also, as an historical note, the case of Buckley v. Valeo did not invent the concept of corporate personhood; the notion had already existed for over a century in American law. (See, e.g., Dartmouth College v. Woodward (17 U.S. 518 [1819]) and Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. (118 U.S. 394 [1886]).) Also, such groups as those aforementioned are, essentially, assemblies of individuals, entities that are clearly protected by the First Amendment. When a person joins an assembly, he or she does not suddenly lose such liberties as free speech. One of the purposes of assembly is to amplify the voice of people with a common interest. I should reiterate that I am concerned only with what have been dubbed in legislation (specifically, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, i.e., the McCain-Feingold Act, of 2002) independent expenditures, i.e., money that a political actor may use for its own political speech, not for the political resources of another actor; hence donations/contributions do not fall within the scope of this debate. I"d like to minimize the use of legalese, but I believe this is a distinction worth making. Also, I do not conflate money with speech, nor does any serious mind on either side of the aisle in this debate, I believe. Money is not speech; it is, however unfortunately, essential to speech insofar as a political actor wants to send its message by some means beyond standing atop a roof and shouting at the top of its lungs. I do not propose the notion of unlimited speech as an absolute. There are cases in which speech may be understandably limited, e.g., noise curfews and littering laws, but these are exceptions to the rule, not the rule itself. Political speech is arguably the most important type of speech. Government actions that limit it, directly or indirectly, ought to be treated with the highest suspicion. My opponent invokes notions of "money primary" and "donor class." Unless I misunderstand them, these terms are, at best, rhetorical devices, which I believe have no place here. Yes, democracy is rule of the people, and I believe such rule is enhanced when the government is restrained from manipulating the rules of political campaigns and elections in a way that gives incumbents an advantage. Moreover, I find such legislation rather paternalistic; the fact that a certain politician happens to be spending more than an opponent does not automatically draw more voters"we don"t need the government to hold our hand in an alleged effort to restore equality. We"re not going to be duped by the mere fact that a certain candidate can afford more ads. Take, for example, the surprising loss of Eric Cantor in a Republican primary election in 2014: he spent nearly forty times more than his opponent but lost no less. I don't deny that money in politics is a very serious problem. I am very concerned about the financial influence of certain political actors. I believe, however, that the proper way to address this problem ought not to entail limiting speech. We ought to focus on empowering the disenfranchised, not disabling more political actors in order to allegedly level the playing field. A final point worth making--and one which I may reiterate later in the debate because I find it a very important point--is that, despite how seemingly powerful the likes of McDonald's, Wal-Mart, and the NRA may seem, the federal government is that much more powerful. To defer to it the ability to, in effect, control speech--speech that determines the identity of Congress--is a naive, dangerous move that gives the government undue power.