LD Debate: Citizen's United v. Federal Election Commission ruling undermines democracy in the U.S.

My opponent quoted will appear in italics. The reality of the Citizens United ruling is that it fails to take into account what our democracy is built on. The democracy of the United States is the precipitated on the idea of one person, one vote. Anything that would muddy the water and make it unclear whether everyone really does have one vote is undermining our democracy. First, some info on the ruling for readers who are unfamiliar with the decision:The Citizens United ruling fundamentally changes our elections process, my opponent seems to focus on corporations, but corporations are not the only ones effected by the decision. Citizens Untied vs. the FEC allows for unlimited donations by Unions, Corporations and outside groups to Political Action Committees or PACs. This is much broader than just corporations. Contention 1: The Citizens United ruling undermines democracy by undermining the image of our democracy. In the 2012 Presidential Election most Super Pac's were funded by donations of $25,000 or more [1]. This undoubtedly gives of the impression that those with bigger wallets will be able to steer elections and ultimately the fate our nation as they please, without consideration given to the fact that they no longer have "one vote" per se. The wealthy can now effectively bankroll elections, as they did in November. The Citizens United decision consequently undermines the image of our democracy by implying that we are no longer equal in elections. This can only result in increased cynicism and distrust, at home and abroad. Contention 2: The Citizens United ruling undermines democracy by corrupting the political process. When most people think of American Politics, they think of the national stage, great Titans in the political world pitted against each other, vying for the position of head of the most powerful country on Earth. In reality, our political system has been engineered with a system of checks and balances to ensure that local politics still matter. The Citizens United ruling has a disproportionate effect on communities and can only serve to undermine democracy. Imagine a local representative being approached by a wealthy corporation and being pressured to cut property tax rates on the Business Park area the corporation resides in. In an ideal world the representative would make the decision that is best for the community as a whole, if this involves cutting the taxes, he would, if not, then not. Citizens United steers us away from this democratic ideal by allowing said corporation to approach the representative and force him to cut taxes or create loopholes by threatening to fund his opponent during the quickly approaching election season. They have the means to do so, since Citizens United eliminated any such limits on corporate "free speech". The representative buckles since he very much loves his job and his service to his community. Clearly this is not the democracy we want to enjoy in America. I have shown that there are two ways that the Citizens United ruling undermines our democracy, by hurting our image and by corrupting the political process. I will now rebut my opponent"s arguments. My opponent opens his real argument by stating that a corporation "is a legal entity authorized to act as an individual"I have no issue with this, but my opponent goes on to state that "And because it can act as an individual, itshould have the same rights as an individual because Peter Calvert says in hisbook Comparative Politics that"democracies are states in which" certain basic freedoms, often termed as civilrights, will be guaranteed to the individual. "My opponent is commiting a non-sequitur (his conclusion does not follow from his premises [3]). Just because corporations are individuals in a dictionary and under some law does not mean they are the same individiauls Calvert refers to in his book, they are not the same individuals guaranteed basic freedoms or civil rights. Corporations themselves do not have a right to bear arms, the individuals that make them up do, however. I will now attack my opponent"s contentions. "Contention One: Corporations are people." "If a corporation is an entity, and anindividual is an entity, then a corporation is an individual."Non sequitur, a book is an entity but isn't an individual. "And if acorporation is an individual, and an individual is a person, then a corporationis a person."Non sequitur, my opponent is using a faulty definition of the individual. An individual is something that is existing as a distinct entity [4]. While my opponent does not refer to corporation's individuality under the law, I will mention it here if my opponent attempts to bring it up in the next round. Even though Corporations can ACT as individuals under the law, that does not grant them personhood by any means. "And philosophically speaking, yes it is a person. Corporationsbreathe success just like humans breathe air."Irrelevant. Also how do corporations "breathe success"?"Contention Two: Denying a corporation"s right to donate money to apolitician is segregation."To segregate: To separate or isolate from others or from a main body or group [2]. My opponent fails to show 1. How Citizens United segregates coporations. 2. How segregation as related to Citizens United hurts democracy. "Contention Three and Four: Congress makes no clarification on what isspeech or who has the freedom of speech."My opponent asserts that corporations should be able to donate to politicians because they have a legal right to speech. My opponent does not connect donating to politicians with speech protected under the First Amendment.Actually, he even says "Nowhere in that does it say what is speech or whohas the freedom of speech. Therefore, anyone has the freedom of speech,including corporations." But does not explain why this is true. "Fifth Contention: Money donated by a corporation has no major effect onthe election.""Mitt Romney had $55 million more dollars than President Obamafrom Super PAC and corporation donations, but Obama won the election."Just because Mitt Romney had more money does not imply that corporations had "no major effect on the election". Corporations were still able to muddy the waters of democracy, who won or who lost is inconsequential to the resolution. I have shown how Citizens United undermines democracy and have successfully rebutted my opponent"s contentions. Back to you. [1] http://www.nytimes.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(logic)[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...