Campaign Financing Should Be Heavily Regulated

Ok, a policy debate it is! I would like to start by agreeing with my opponent's, perhaps slightly informal summary of my 3 policy arguments. However, my opponent unfortunately fails to provide successful rebutall to my arguments. I will now respond to what he has claimed. P1."There you have it. No buying policies. No individuals being drowned out by lobbyists. No skyrocketing increases of money in politics. Most donations are people with a just and respectable desire to contribute to our democratic system."The paper which you cite, from the Catholic Law Review, makes a giant leap, immediately defining money as 'free speech'. I will address the false premise that money somehow equals freedom of speech in a moment. However, the very article that you cite, concedes that money has an influence on voters! "Political issue advocacy affects elections. For example, television advertisements criticizing California Governor Gray Davis for electric power "gray-outs" may cause voters to reject his reelection bid" [1]And how is political issue advocacy obtained? Through the purchase of it! Television adverts, billboards and newspaper adverts all sway the public to feel a certain way, and if you do not have money and do not have the ability to purchase advertisements, and purchase influence, you cannot possibly expect to win an election. That's precisely why the 2 party system in the United States is unstoppable, because minor and third parties don't have enough money for voters to hear of them. That doesn't sound like freedom of speech, does it? That sounds like suppression. On the topic of special interest groups, such as the NRA etc. Whether these groups are individual or acting as a collective, they still have a disproportionate amount of influence over the "average Joe". To label lobbyist groups as somehow 'good-willed, law-abiding citizens' that only want the best for the United States is absurd. For example, the NRA, perhaps the most powerful lobbyist organisation in the United States, receives over 40% of it's donations from gun manufacturers, with 3/4 of it's corporate donors from the firearms industry [2]. As Jordan Weisseman from The Atlantic put it:"That might theoretically explain why the group has opposed politically popular measures such as requiring background checks at gun shows and banning sales to people on the terrorist watch list, proposals that even its own members have been found to support. For gun makers, the fewer rules, the better. " [3]This clearly shows that lobbyist groups are not just organisations of people, but are ultimately influenced heavily by corporations, and in this case for a very wrong reason. This doesn't just apply to the NRA, but to many other organisations, of which corporate powers manipulate for their own economic gain.Gary Younge, of the Guardian US, argues that:"Downplaying money's central role at this point merely buys into the illusion of participatory democracy, where ideas, character and strategy are paramount, while others are actually buying the candidates and access to power." [4]P2.I would first like to clarify that these aren't just 'poor people problems', but rather problems faced by all Americans who do not spend ridiculous amounts of money. And, that is a huge majority of people, in fact ONLY 0.14% of Americans donate $200 or more to political parties, organisations or candidates [5]. This is a problem faced by well over 90% of American people. "So... the biggest contributors are the little guys? Yep! So we see that, really, the rich aren't buying campaigns at all. And especially not elections."That is a false conclusion from that statement, and the 'little guys' were not the biggest contributors. Nowhere in that statement from William J. Rinner of the Harvard Law School does it suggest that the little guys were the greatest contributors, but rather the fact that corporate money didn't deter people from making contributions. This is irrelevant, because the point remains: big money drowns out smaller donations from the average American. In the 2008 election, donations of $1000 or more contributed to 53% of funds raised, while donations of under $200 contributed to only 24% of total funds raised [6], and as I have explained only 0.14% of Americans actually donate more than $200. A small majority with a ridiculous amount of influence, and the average American is completely drowned out. So there you have it. My opponent's claim is clearly false when evidence is presented. The average American cannot possibly compete with big money in politics.P3."Pro would have you believe that CFR makes everything better. It doesnt. I know this because... it's been done before."That sounds very unconclusive. And, I accept that campaign financing has been regulated previously. However, is it a coincidence that, while campaign regulation is being removed, this Congress has "become the most unresponsive and out of touch Congress ever" [7][8] ? It is clear to me that without laws, without regulation, the US Congress has become out of touch, and is more intent on satisfying it's wealthy donors than actually serving the electorate.Even if you see previous regulation of campaign financing as failures (which they were not), that doesn't mean a renewed attempt today would be! Measures such as capping of individual donations and public dislosures which have been enacted in the past were effective, but they are relatively small measures compared to the dramatic overhaul of campaign financing that is being proposed. Public funding, with concessions to parties based on registered membership, would be an effective means, and the measurement of failure would be based on Congress' responsiveness and effectiveness, of which logically would skyrocket under such a system, because campaign financing would be more democratic"But why does regulation make things so awful? Because political speech (which is what political contributions were ruled to be, as per the Citizens United v. FEC supreme court decision[5]) wasn't meant to be regulated! It's your right to spend as much money as you want to in an election. If we start limiting how much people can spend with their hard earned money, then we are stripping them of their First Amendment rights."The Citizens United v. FEC case, and the McCutcheon v. FEC case, were horrendous. Justice Thomas, who argues (I assume) as you do, that "Money is not freedom of speech. It's a currency, a material object, and the rampant dispraportion in wealth today basically says that "the poor have little free speech, and the rich have more free speech". With such logic, taxation should be illegal, because it's the government taking away 'free speech', because supposedly money is speech.ConclusionCFR is fundamentally important for ensuring the survival of our democracy. My opponent has unsuccessfully argued the case for big money in politics, and his claims have all been disproved. I have rebutted all of his claims, and I look forward to his response.(Also, I hope I haven't come across as aggressive in this rebuttal. I look forward to your response :) .)[1] http://scholarship.law.edu...[2] http://www.businessweek.com...[3] http://www.theatlantic.com...[4] http://www.theguardian.com...[5] https://www.opensecrets.org...[6] http://www.cfinst.org...[7] http://www.examiner.com...[8] http://theweek.com...[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...