Campaign Financing Should Be Heavily Regulated

Thanks JustinAMoffattP1."Certainly, money has some affect on elections, but not so much that we should be willing to amend or violate the constitution to get rid of it." In that statement, you have conceded a crucial part of the entire debate. Money does indeed have an effect on elections, an incredibly negative effect as I have demonstrated with my previous arguments and I shall reiterate that in a moment. However, I would first like to address the latter part of your statement, where my opponent says "'but not so much that we should be willing to amend or violate the constitution to get rid of it." We don't necessarily need to do either of those things in order to rid politics of the corruptive influence of money. We need to simply ensure that the definition of 'free speech' remains dissociated from political contributions. This could be achieved through the Supreme Court, through the passage of regulatory bills among many other things. But even if an amendment to the constitution is necessary, what is the harm in it? It would simply, in a certain capacity, implement a clause regarding political contributions and ensure that money is not viewed as free speech. It's simple, and the long and short term benefits would outweigh any cons of implementing such an amendment. "and the fact that third party candidates DO get elected"Of course they do. But to suggest that third party candidates can compete on the scale that the 2 major parties do is absurd. How many Independents or third party candidates hold elected offices in the House of Representatives or the Senate? Two, is the answer [1]. Bernie Sanders and Angus King, both Senators, and are the sole independents out of 541 individuals. You cannot deny such two party dominance.And, a major reason why the two parties are dominant? Money. The abundance of wealth in both party's finances is unrivaled by any other political party, and has allowed the two party system to cement itself [2][3]. It's an uphill battle for 3rd party candidates, because of the huge expenditures required in order to attain influence, get on ballots and establish your party. But don't take my word for it, Phil Huckleberry, of the Green Party's Ballot Access Committee, said:"The time, money and energy spent getting on the ballot is more than the time, money and energy spent once we are on the ballot in most of these states," [3] Ballot access laws, among many other factors, ensure the two parties remain firm in their dominance of US politics. However, access to ballots and ultimate electoral success is based on a party's ability to spend money on individuals lobbying for access, but ultimately getting the party 'known'. The only successful means to attain such publicity is through the purchase of advertisements. Money clearly plays an important role, and my opponent unfortunately fails to recognise this. "Next, my opponent states that lobbyists have somehow lost their status as "people" when they accept corporate donations. I fail to see the connection. Corporations also are made up of people. But corporations don't donate as much as you might think, anyways." No, it appears my opponent missed the point. When lobby groups are influenced so heavily by corporations, whose motivations are based on profit, lobby groups are no longer entirely for it's members, but are fighting for the interests of corporations, typically in a capacity to ensure that such a corporate donor remains profitable. THAT, is when they lose their status as 'people'."Lobby groups represent the views of their corporate donors often more frequently than the views of individual members to such organisations. Perhaps the greatest culprit of such acts is the NRA." [4] "I've listed many professors and PhDs, along with peer reviewed journals and papers, all stating that the Campaign Finance system needs no more regulation."You've listed a sole journal, which is not peer reviewed (nor would an article be with an opinionated slant), whose conslusions as I have reiterated many times are false, due to their ridiculous assumptions. My opponent has also listed various opinion articles. But ultimately my sources showing hard evidence (Campaign Finance Institute) demonstrating the money going to various candidates and their succeeding policy actions shows unquestionably the influence of money on politicians.Money has a clear influence on politics. You cannot deny this. That's how bribery works. By stopping campaign financing from being effectively implemented, you're essentally ensuring large scale bribery to take place.In the words of Robert C. Byrd, Democratic Senator from 1959 to 2010:"It is money, money, money, money! Not ideas, not principles, but money that reigns supreme in American politics!" [5]P2. "This also doesn't mean that those who don't donate more than $200 can't."Many who did not donate did so for various reasons, but the vast majority of Americans cannot afford such a large expenditure on such an item, which is guaranteed to win over no influence and achieve very little. The average American earns $49,638 per year [6]. To many, (and clearly to many who earn less than the afformentioned figure), $200 campaign contribution is unaffordable. And, particularly the lower class, cannot possiby spend money in such a manner. This further shows why money in politics is a bad thing, because the poor could not possibly begin to have any influence over political candidates and incumbents, making their desires in Congress significantly less important."Also, to reiterate, I've cited experts and papers that state that small donations are still important and impactful in an election."No, Con simply hasn't. Again, I return to the paper Con cited, from the Catholic University Law Review, the sole paper which you have cited when discussing the Cons associated with CFR, it states that:"Campaign contributions remaining meaningful for the individual who chooses to contribute." [7]Your view contradicts the paper you cite. They're meaningful, but only to the individual. To the party, to the candidate and in the broad scale, a $5 donation has no effect or sway on policy. A $500 000 donation would allow an individual to get a politician's attention.P3.My opponents fails to see the correlation between the unresponsiveness of Congress and the deregulation of campaign financing. "Yes, Congress is largely unresponsive at the moment, but Congress also isn't responsible for removing campaign finance regulation"Why does this matter?"You can't argue with the Supreme Court."Of course you can. As I have explained, an amendment to the constitution would achieve the appropriate regulation of campaign contributions. It's called democracy. As you have said in the past, the Supreme Court doesn't always make the right decision.The removal of money's influence in politics carries so many benefits. There are simply no issues raised when money is removed from the political sphere, none which Con has brought up. 'Political expression', which my opponent finds so important, is expressed through the vote. A means by which everyone has an equal say.ConclusionMoney in politics has a clear and dangerous influence upon politicians. In order for our Representative Democracy to appropriately represent all people, campaign financing must be heavily regulated. I have proved that money corrupts (P1), I have demonstrated that the rest of America can't keep up (P2) and that the regulation of this money helps solve the problem (P3).Vote pro. [1] http://fas.org...[2] http://www.minnpost.com...[3] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...[4] http://ftp.iza.org...[5] http://thinkexist.com...;[6]http://www.getrichslowly.org...;[7] http://scholarship.law.edu...