Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission should be overturned

I frankly wouldn't like to take this debate any further (which is why it is helpful that is Round 5, I suppose), but there are a few things I would like to point out. First, I was planning to begin my comment with a correction on the Tea Act--I meant to say the Townsend Acts--but I see that you have addressed that, as you rightfully should have, because it was a horrible error on my part. Second, the animosity and sheer frequency of ad hominem attacks in your post(s) is absolutely stunning. I provided fact, after fact, after fact, after fact, and you're providing me with anecdotes: "Poor corporations, everyone wants to take away their voices!." If I were to speak with even a modicum of uncouth, vitriolic tone that you did, I would be inclined to call your arguments silly, naive, unattributed (by the way, Forbes is hardly a credible source. Steve Forbes ran for President twice on the GOP ticket--though it was no surprise to me to find out which side you're on after reading "union thugs"), and you a corporate apologist. Did I? No. Because unlike you, I don't attack people, I attack ideas. And I make arguments, and I back up my sources. Third, you're pushing factual inaccuracy after factual inaccuracy, and even ignoring my points. The crux of my argument was on too-big-to-fail (contrary to what your Chicago friends may tell you, not bailing out the banks would have led to a global depression) and the historical distinction--the fact that the Revolution was triggered by VIRTUAL representation, not overtaxation, but I see that you have ignored that point. Notice that the number of sources I have provided is larger than yours, and my sources are more credible. By the way, the Wall Street Journal, by and large, does NOT run both ways. The reporting indeed is excellent--in spite of the fact that several reporters endorsed Larry Summers for Fed Chair, which I think demonstrates a bias, but I'll look beyond that. The op-ed page is teeming with right-wing, pro-corporatist opinions, and arguing this point is laughable. As for the Keynesian vs. Others: this isn't a debate on economics. If It were, I would point out that the Keynesians were right on virtually everything leading up to the crash, while your guys continued to push tax cuts, deregulation, and austerity--how'd that work out for you? There are even conservative economists who have agreed not only that aggregate demand IS the determinant force at least of this recession, but Art Laffer (Reagan's economic advisor) retracted his statements on the relationship between the monetary base and inflation (then made heinous, untrue comments about the minimum wage, but again, beside the point). And I'm sure you heard about how Harvard's Rogoff and Reinhart were embarrassed by a Umass-Amherst graduate student who found errors in their Excel spreadsheets, and disproved their thesis that justified austerity throughout the world. You left that out of your analysis, though. Fourth, I'm delighted to hear that you're an academic; I am as well. But the way that you have behaved in this debate, even with respect to the (lack of) intellectual honesty that you have demonstrated, causes me to question your positioning in the world of academia. Academics don't say to someone with whom they disagree, "you're making a fool of yourself." They don't blindly support some cause or some group, as you're doing. They make arguments, they cite sources, and they don't distort reality to suit their own agenda. I can't say the same for you. With that said, allow voting to commence as it will.