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

I'd like to begin by addressing some of the primary issues floating around in the arguments. In regard to my opponent's elusive condemnation of the CUD without specifying which aspect of democracy is being undermined:I make no such assertion. I do regard the idea of “fairness” before the law as a democratic ideal, but this high opinion of mine is neither here nor there. I never make this argument. What I argue is that the CUD must limit our free speech rights, or our democratic authority. To clarify, the argument being made in my previous post was that my opponent was loosely condemning the CUD without truly specifying which aspect of democracy was being undermined. He instead clarified his primary argument, which is the catch-22. If the freedom of speech should be extended to groups such as corporations and foreign governments, then it is wrong to limit this freedom on the grounds that the speaker might have once not have been native to this country. This means that either our freedom of speech is not ‘inalienable,’ or the governments of other nations should have the right to drown out the will of the American voter with massive amounts of corporate money. My opponent makes a very faulty assertion, which is that foreign governments can somehow drown out the will of the American voter. Like I stated in my previous argument, the campaigning process in which Super PACs primarily operate is entirely external to the electoral process itself. With the globalization of the world, rhetoric and persuasion are everywhere, and to assume these foreign governments can effectively drown out the will of the American voter is absurd. This is mere rhetoric and persuasion. It is still solely up to the American voter to decide who to vote for. Corporations cannot vote and neither can foreign nations. To assume funding implies victory is absurd. However, it is obvious that both propositions cannot exist at the same time, thus invalidating the entire argument. Harm to democracy (proposition 1) does in fact constitute the “potential harm” caused by the decision (proposition 2), and therefore does not represent a topical error. Potential harm does not constitute harm. I am arguing that the Citizens United decision does harm the democratic authority of the American people, and this argument has not been rebutted. Additionally, I am arguing that because of this, additional legislation is required in order to remedy this court decision. However, because it is a decision handed down by the Supreme Court, no legislative remedies are possible – anything that might second guess the CUD is, by definition, unconstitutional. The only possible legislation that could impact the case would require the extreme case of Constitutional amendment. The most likely alteration to the CUD would come from future SCOTUS decisions, which are likely to overturn or amend the decision. One such amendment would involve restricting the “freedom of speech” of corporations to exclude this right from those which are not native to America. Such a decision would, I argue, make the freedom of speech no longer inalienable. I'll merely restate my previous argument to re-emphasize the point I was making. The potential consequences of a decision cannot be actively attributed to it. The active verb "undermining" is indicating that this harm is already occuring. Unless my opponent can present evidence that this is happening, his argument is entirely baseless. Catch-22The catch-22 presented is in no way correlated with orcausal tothe undermining of democracy. The latter implication of theapparent catch-22, which was the limitation of the United State's democratic authority, is simply not a valid argument. Once again, I'll reemphasize: campaign funding only attempts to persuade voters. There is absolutely nothing wrong with persuasion and rhetoric, even if money is involved. This logic renders our first right, the right to speak, subject to station, class, wealth, and position. Obviously, this cannot be considered democratic. Yet this is what CUD necessarily does, as a necessary condition of its existence. I'll repost a quote from my original argument because it is highly applicable here: "Keep in mind the right to speak is not the right to be heard. In the United States, political equality is highly valued. Each eligible voter can only vote once, and this individual vote is the fundamental method by which sovereignty is indirectly delegated and established. On the other hand, economic equality is not significantly valued. This is clear by the capitalistic nature of the US economy, public opinion and legislation. Given naturally occurring discrepancies in economic equality, particularly equality of results, some individuals have a "louder" voice than others " variations in external efficacy. For example, if I want to get a message heard, and Mark Zuckerberg wants to get a message heard, who will have an easier time? Zuckerberg and I do share the exact same rights. However, he is in escalated position of power through his monetary influence. Nothing about this concept undermines democracy. To "adjust" or censor Zuckerberg"s speech is terribly Vonnegutian and dystopic. This is what the affirmative desires. He is only concerned about potential harms resulting from what happens if we allow corporate free speech. Political speech is protected under the first amendment, and the CUD upholds exactly that. "The perception of corruption is corruption Not only did my opponent fail to provide citations for a reduction in voter turnout, but the argument is also incorrect. A reduction in voter turnout does not undermine democracy. Voting is only one way of participating in politics. It is important but not fundamental. Joining civic associations, supporting social movements, writing to legislators, fighting city hall - all these and other activities are ways of participating in politics. If anything, the presence of corruption motivates the public to overturn this state of alienation. However, this is now irrelevant. Money buys electionsMy opponent makes the argument that money buys elections byproviding the statistic that 80% of candidates with themost money win the elections. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. 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. The incumbent nearly always wins Once again, nothing wrong with an escalated position of power resulting in an escalated volume of speech. Citizens United has increased the amount of money that is influencing our politicians I ask my opponent to clarify how this undermines democracy. I look forward to my opponent's response.