RESOLVED: The Citizens United ruling undermines democracy in the United States.

I thank my partner for his spirited and steadfast argument. I must say that I am surprised by his tenacity – I didn’t expect it. I must answer as many of his arguments as I am able, but also must find time to present a few new arguments as well – as this is the final round in which I am allowed to do so. “Political equality and economic equality are two separate things.” Not in a democratic state. Democracy, by definition, requires that all citizens are seen as equals in the eyes of the state – with no regard to station, wealth, titles or class. My partner here argues that it is fair and just that those with greater wealth should hold greater influence over the government, which is the premise of plutocracy and oligarchy – but not democracy. He may have a point, in that it is actually fair and just – but it cannot be democratic, and that is the point that we are discussing. Citizens United has made worse this plutocratic slide. “More money could also imply more populous political support.” Yes, it could – but it could also evidence more corruption or personal wealth. A stronger argument is required, in order to eliminate these conditions and demonstrate convincingly that money (which is delivered to politicians in far more healthy doses thanks to Citizens United) does not influence policy decisions. “Money doesn't vote.” Neither do corporations. Money, however does influence behavior – witness the girl who works forty hours a week for some of it. Witness the politician, who writes laws that benefit corporate giants for a truckload of it. Witness the congressional intern, helping to “regulate” the industry that his corrupt congressional boss is “policing” in the public interest. This intern will soon be an employee of that industry – and he knows it. Citizens United allows corporations to hire the very governmental agencies that are regulating them. [1] “Getting money for your campaign is a crucial element of the political game.” This argument, made by my partner, is exactly the same as mine. Citizens United makes this element even more crucial. It is important to point out that this is not a necessary component of democracy – the State of Texas, for example, only allows a total of $25 to be spent throughout the entirety of any election for the coveted position of Speaker of the House of the Texas House of Representatives. There is no reason that the same rule could not be applied to all federal elections – and work exactly as well as it does in the Texas House. “There is legislation preventing quid pro quo and the most the billionaire will do is attempt to influence the already elected politician.” This is stated as if it were “no big deal.” If this is occurring on a widespread basis, as my partner claims, then we have no functioning democracy now – regardless of the Citizens United ruling. Attempting to influence the already elected with money and gifts should never be tolerated by any electorate. This is aristocratic rule, and something that Americans have fought wars to remove from our politics. “There is nothing wrong with overturning some previous legislation. Legislators still struggle to decipher the “true” intentions of the framers. This does not undermine democracy.” In my example of the Montana case, the voters of Montana attempted to restrict corruption among their political overlords – and had their every democratic effort swept away by the SCOTUS, enforcing its treasured Citizens United decision. There is no definition of democracy that allows for an unelected minority of decision makers to overrule the expressed will of the people.It should be remembered that any legislation that attempts to second guess the Citizens United ruling is illegal. As a Supreme Court decision, any such legislation would automatically be unconstitutional. “Quid pro quo is illegal and cannot be considered in this debate” I am arguing that quid pro quo was illegal – before the Citizens United case made these laws unenforceable. By unenforceable, I point out that removing McCain Feingold (struck down by the CUD) removes the legal requirement to report the source of corporate donations to congress. Without even being allowed to know where the money is coming from, there is no way to determine if quid pro quo is occurring. It is not legal, but is also impossible to enforce. By stating this, it is clear that my partner is arguing that quid pro quo is ‘wrong’ and implicitly anti-democratic. Since Citizens United entirely prevents these laws from being enforced, we see agreement that the decision undermines democracy. Seeds and Stems I am out of space – and largely unable to present several other arguments comprehensively. I need to make a few points, however frugal I wish to be with my character count. Democracy or Republic? Our nation is a hybrid system, a republic that operates on a democratic matrix, overseen by strict constitutional restrictions placed on the state, and occasionally, the majority of citizens. (Citizens are not allowed to own slaves, for example.) I argue that it is the democratic element that forever sets our nation apart from other republics, such as the Republics of Iran and Iraq, the Soviet Socialist Republics or the People’s Republic of China. I argue that the republican and constitutional elements are necessary but not sufficient components to our American system, and should be maintained just as fervently as our democratic elements. I feel that Citizens United destroys these institutions, as I have argued, but also that it destroys our constitution – by making its welfare increasingly vulnerable to insidious erosion by powerful and well placed special interests. Soon, we may all be “represented” by a congress that we hate – but whose decisions we are powerless to reverse... without the ability to outbid the beneficiaries of the Citizens United ruling.The need to connect with constituents versus the need to find moneyAs my partner points out, the need to find money is critical - the voters can be reached through advertising. What this means is that the process of "getting to personally know" a congressman is reserved to those with money - and crude advertising is all that is left to the voters. This cannot be democracy - but oligarchy. As soon as a congressional recess happens, our lawmakers are chasing money from whatever source they can find. They are not connecting with local voters, or working on legislation. Nothing else is as important as getting enough campaign cash to win that 80% likelihood that they will be re-elected. 80% of all federal elections are won by the candidate with the most money. There is no definition of democracy that argues that only those with money should represent the people. We may discuss the reasons for these "gifts" to be given to the Congressman, but not the need to have them in order to get elected. Citizens United pushes this requirement even further in the wrong, and less democratic, direction. Who Wins? Readers must ask my partner, as they evaluate our performances here – who wins as a result of the Citizens United decision? Is it the common person – who lacks station and wealth? Or is it the Company Boss, the Faceless Corporation, or the White, Landowning Man? Are the needs of the normal girl, working her way through school answered by this decision? Do we trust that her welfare and democratic authority will be protected if these needs second guess the paymasters of our congressman? In an America where the congressman has an existential reason to obey the Company Boss, thanks to Citizens United, how will “we the people” respond? It can’t be by protecting our “right” to bribe our lawmakers if we wish to protect democracy. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...