PRO:
* Corporations do have the right to free speech as they are a kind of people.
* Politicians will always first and foremost answer to the voting public here in America
* The case may have been made that because they are being given significantly useful amounts of cash to run their campaign ads that would change who answer to but the people who actually have the power to put them into office is the voter
* Spending money on TV ads is not the same as yelling fire by a long shot, nor is the same as yelling fire by giving money to people who are ultimately controlled by voters, not your money.
* By limiting how much money we can give to campaigns you’re limiting our ability to buy airtime and thus limiting our right to free speech.
CON:
* Money is not a form of speech. Money is an object. Therefore, it is a form of property, as a medium of exchange.
* Many large companies that rake in billions of dollars could pour their funds into a politician's campaign, which would have numerous implications, including:
* Making fringe candidates less likely to succeed
* Making grassroots funding insignificant
* Making national policy become corporate interest
* Making the America become Corporate America
* Since currently there are no limits with spending with campaign finance laws, [1] corporations are allowed to
* Donate unlimited amounts of funds to a politician's campaign. These actions do not even have to hurt
* Corporation’s profits by a wide margin.
* It is legal to talk to a politician in order to try to persuade a politician. However, some are saying that money is equitable to speech. If that was so, a corporation should be fully allowed to persuade a politician by speaking to them with money. This is an example of bribery. However, if spending is truly a form of speech, then this bribery should be allowed. This is absurd.
FACTS
* A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can...