Tariffs / Supreme Court position on Citizens United

1) do you think the tariffs are a good idea?

2) do you think the power to impose tariffs is a topic that should have been debated in Congress, or is it right that Trump can order them without working w Congress?

Part 2
Citizens United allows corporations to make contributions on behalf of political causes without spending limits. the Supreme Court reasoning is essentially that contributions to political causes are a form of free speech, and hence protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

this decision has been criticized because corporations generally are able to spend more money than individual citizens on political causes and hence are able to spend more money on political causes than citizens. it has also been criticized because it gives corporations the same status as citizens under the 1st Amendment.

what should be noted, however, is that Citizens United does not mean corporations can spend money on candidates–that is, corporations are restricted in the contributions they can make directly *to* candidates. what the case does is remove restrictions on what corporations spend on *behalf* of candidates.

so for example, corporations under Citizens United would still face restrictions on how much they can contribute to the election campaigns of potential candidates like Clinton or Christie. corporations, however, are free to spend on print advertisements advocating positions espoused by Clinton or Christie.

3) The Supreme Court position on Citizens United. do you make the same distinctions the Supreme Court makes? do you agree with the reasoning or the ruling?