Check grammer and structure

The fundamentalist who argue first Amendment protects the rights of cooperate funding to the election campaign is debatable argument. In my opinion cooperate are not person they can never represent the people as we know they are establish only to achieve profit. Everything cooperation does have some kind of their greed we cannot believe that cooperation poring lots of the money is for the benefit of the society and consumers. In really what matters is we cannot let the cooperation spending blindly believing that they have rights as individuals and make the flow money in the campaign.

As if we allowed the follow of the money in our political campaigns there is always danger of special interest groups or foreign pouring the money influencing the American elections. Picking on the issues President Obama gave his State of the Union address declaring, "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests-including foreign corporations-to spend without limit in our elections." (Silverleib, Alan)Cooperation as state in constitution as “person” doesn’t mean we can allowed them without the regulation. It is clear we need have some kind of mechanism or limitation how money flow in the campaign.

The other danger of flow of the money is that normal people lost their voices or never reached to the concern party. Our society is structure in a way that money given determine the one person influence in the society. Stephen Breyer who don’t like rights given to the cooperation has said, “Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard . . . And a cynical public can lose interest in political participation altogether.”(Barnes, Robert)It is clear that allowing cooperate we are not giving but violating the first amendment rights of individual equal rights to participate. We know that cooperate has more money than individual in the society and thus can influence the candidates. It makes the people who are elected don’t work on the interest of people but cooperate. Have anyone consider ExxonMobil an "association of citizens"? Goldman Sachs? The UAW? No, they are never consider If you really want to find out the association of citizen than have, go to a FTA meeting or a soup kitchen volunteer line not looking in New York stock exchange.

We all know money runs the world. It has dominates every aspects of our life from day to day activities to political views too. The case between Citizens United vs Federal election Supreme Court, decided by a 5-4 vote. “What Citizens United really has done is freed us from the shackles of worrying whether Susie’s Florist, Inc. writes a check on her business account and gives it to a candidate, puts candidate literature on the countertop,” (Kellogg, Sarah)says Cleta Mitchell an advisor to republican U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle of Nevada. I am not saying there is no value of majority but it has triggered floodgate where cooperate now legally right a check to which ever candidate they think will help their interests. If people believe that corporations were the same as citizens, why do they have their own tax rate?

What Supreme Court did was throwing the values of our history where our forefather fought to get equality and end of the power to certain groups. We are returning in the colony of cooperate where normal person loss the voices. “It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. Cloaking itself in the First Amendment, the court rushed through this decision, based it on flimsily on a case involving a film, and knocked down a half-century's worth of wise, hard-fought limits on how much influence a corporation can have in choosing our leaders.” says John Stossel the reporter on Fort Worth Business Press. The court verdict is self-representation of the influence of cooperate in every sector of our democracy. If it goes on like this we again have to fight for our equality and liberty.

The problem is the kind of simple-minded interpretation of the Constitution I have discussed. We need mechanism limiting the influences of the cooperation’s in our government and its agency. Cooperation doesn’t think and look it was merely establish to get the profit for the consumers. I want to emphasize that we should limit cooperation spending which will help from the problem like foreign influence in our election, protecting the voices of common people and protecting our self-rule.