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

I would like to begin by emphasizing my gratitude for my opponent"s surprisingly cogent and unique response. Seeing such an unorthodox approach to the landmark case is amazingly refreshing and will indubitably provide for some fantastic angles of argumentation further in the round. Firstly, I cannot help but immediately point out a gaping hole in this critique of the decision, especially in reference to the resolution. The affirmative argument is largely contingent on a vague underlying ethical system that is never fully exemplified. The affirmative seems to juxtapose each notion of supremacy with some "obvious" harm that apparently undermines democracy without truly specifying how, thereby performing this grotesquely fallacious rhetorical association, in that anything that seems to contradict the idea of fairness or goodness is also contradicting the concept of democracy.Secondly, the critique is especially focused on potential consequences of the decision itself. Keep in mind that nearly any piece of legislation could, in a sense, have a potential harm that undermines democracy. The argument that the consequences of freedom of speech, alone, could undermine democracy can be made. Now, there is legislation to, for the most part, prevent this. If there were not legislation preventing some consequential elements of the freedom of speech, the argument that freedom of speech itself undermines democracy still could not be made. What we are discussing here is a factual proposition " whether or not the CUD, through its nature, is undermining democracy; whether or not the specific aspects of the decision themselves are undermining democracy. It would be absurd to assume that there are no potential negative consequences of this decision. The affirmative and negative must agree upon this. These potential consequences can be remedied through the use of legislation closing loopholes and discouraging corrupt behavior, but this is an entirely different issue. An argument about the potential harms of a decision is a major topicality error on the affirmative part and I ask for clarification. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, democracy is generally defined as equal participation in collective decision-making. This is currently upheld, and will continue to be upheld as the explicit electoral process remains unchanged by legislation. Each individual is entitled to one vote " no more, no less. As long as this concept is in place, democracy simply cannot be undermined. The individual makes the choice; nothing else does.Given this principle, it should be pointed out that literally every aspect of the Citizens United decision is dealing with influence. There are zero aspects of the ruling that can have any direct impact on the results of the elections. It is literally a game of rhetoric and persuasion through television, radio and Internet. The effectiveness of these advertisements, as indicated by evidence, is only effective if an insubordinate amount of money is dedicated to the campaign and if it is largely above the spending of others [1]. It is also regarded by many as negligible [2] [3] [4].A primary issue in the repugnance of the CUD is the inadvertent advocacy of censorship. By abridging the freedom of speech of any party, one is actually undermining democracy and directly antagonizing the freedom of speech. This is precisely what the affirmative is arguing " that corporate speech ought to be censored.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 [5].[1]http://journals.cambridge.org...[2]http://www.theatlanticwire.com...[3] http://articles.herald-mail.com...[4] http://www.policymic.com...[5] http://www.ij.org...