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

I have enjoyed a great deal the week or two that we have spent discussing this topic. I will offer a few rebuttals, and my closing summary. “The United States is not a democracy. ” Perhaps this was written before my entire Round Four arguments had been read, because I covered this topic towards the end. I am glad that my partner and I agree on this point: the US is a hybrid political system. “However, the plutocracy exists merely within the marketplace of ideas…If Bill Gates released a statement condemning the President of the United States, this would get a lot more attention and hold more influence than it would if some low-middle class individual uploaded a video to YouTube complaining. ” This is either an non-sequitur fallacy, or a profound misunderstanding. I am certain that we all agree that there are abilities available to the wealthy that are not obtainable by the rest of society. The ability to gain widespread attention is one of these abilities. However, we are here discussing governmental influence – and the impact that funding political careers has on those careers. One of these abilities should not be a greater ability to fund political careers as a means of controlling the government. Citizens United provides this ability, and therefore undermines our democratic institutions. "Yes, it could, but it could also evidence more corruption or personal wealth. " (This was the response to my rebuttal of the argument that better funded campaigns could indicate greater levels of popular support. I argued that this is not necessarily the case, and therefore, stronger argumentation would be needed to prove that other factors were not at play. ) Here my partner concedes to my logic, and agrees that his argument was pointless to pursue. Compare: Con: “More money could also imply more populous political support. Just because more money is contributed to the election does not mean the will of the many is being undermined. It could just mean that there are literally more supporters of this candidate. ” My Rebuttal: “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 does not influence policy decisions”. Con’s Defense: “This argument is not going to go anywhere. There is no evidence supporting either side. This is merely a potential argument; a "this could be happening but we can’t know" argument. Therefore, this argument just cannot be used to affirm or negate the topic. ” My response: I couldn’t have said it better, but I did say it faster. “Citizens United does not allow corporations to hire the very governmental agencies that are regulating them. My opponent’s citation on this was a link to the Wikipedia article on PACs. There was no evidence indicating that this change happens. ” I cited a Wiki on Super PACs, because the creation of these PACS (made possible by Citizens United) creates the lack of oversight that does – in fact – allow corporations to hire the regulators that would otherwise limit their unethical activities. The precise way this happens is complex – hence my link to the explanation. Nutshell: there are no longer any meaningful laws that are constitutional after Citizens United which prevent government regulators from being hired out by the corporations they regulate. If a corporation today wants to hire a regulator, there is now a simple process for this: the regulator goes to work for the corporation and quits working in DC. The elegant simplicity of this process makes it far more similar to bribery than “free speech:” fearful of sabotaging a potential lucrative career path, the regulators do not enforce the laws too strictly, and therefore burn any important bridges. I point out that if billionaires are being permitted to legally bribe elected officials on a widespread basis then our democratic agencies are long since dead. It seems that my partner made a bit much of this statement, pretending that I had argued that there was no democracy for Citizens United to undermine. He also points out that there are limits to this gift-giving. I must point out that Citizens United makes these limits unconstitutional, and unenforceable – if they are given to the campaign and not the candidate. Since my partner seems to agree with me that this activity is as unethical as it is anti-democratic, I feel that it should be considered an important concession. Citizens United merely upholds the First Amendment The First Amendment pertains only to American citizens – not American legal agreements or groups. The entire concept of liberty (such as freedom of speech) is completely incoherent and nonsensical on a mass scale – it can only relate to individuals. In order for “free speech” to be protected in the context of allowing corporate bribery to occur in the broad daylight is tantamount to suggesting that corporations are individual citizens – an absurd concept. To reveal how absurd this idea is, all that must be done is to attempt to apply other portions of the constitution to them (as the cherished First Amendment is granted to them by my partner. ) Can corporations be elected to political office? Can a corporation (that is more than 35 years old) sit in the White House? Can they sit on a jury? Obviously not. The recourse to the cherished idea of “freedom of speech” cannot be applied to groups – these are strictly individual rights. In order to grant these individual liberties to groups and legal charters (such as corporations) necessarily strips them from all individuals within those groups – into a collectivist corporatized version of humanity that is a horror to most Americans. I need to point out that character counting has forced me to not answer various minor arguments presented by my partner. There was never any agreement to count these drops as concessions, and so I left a few of the less relevant arguments out of my rebuttals in order to save space. Citizens United has allowed the fact and promise of money to supersede voting and democracy in the eyes of elected officials. While voters are allowed to determine this or that unimportant referendum – will this highway be extended? Will that school be rebuilt? On every other important matter we must endure the humiliation of having our cute little cheeks pinched, and our darling little forelocks shaken by those who hold these offices. We simply no longer dictate to our congress; it now commands us. On no important decision will our congressional paymaster allow themselves to lose. That highway extension? The company that funded the Mayoral Election will be awarded that. That school construction? The company that the Chairman of the City Council has invested in will build that. This is not democracy, but it is the government that we have after Citizens United. This decision allows non-human, non citizen, and often non-resident entities to exert a heavy influence on our governance. Since these entities may have priorities that are enormously at odds with those of our nation, we must restrict their ability to make themselves our masters - by buying elected offices. In closing, I want to sincerely thank my partner for his time - I am always flattered by the decision to engage in this type of gaming with me instead of the many other things that can be done. I also want to thank the readers (and hopefully, voters) who will evaluate this contest. I hope that our judges will not consider my performance here too harshly. This was a wide subject, and very difficult to narrow down. I am certain that my partner and I agree on this. Under no circumstances am I arrogant enough to feel that I said all that can be said on this topic.