We should Amend The Constitution to Overturn Citizens United

Thanks! :D 1. Rebuttals My opponent begins Round 2 by correcting me in saying that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) applies only to electioneering, not donations. With all due respect, my opponent must understand that he/she is incorrect and the BCRA does, in fact, address donations - one of its two main effects was the restriction of 'soft money', or money donated in a way that escapes federal regulation. The BCRA banned federal political parties and officeholders from soliciting, receiving, directing, transferring, or spending soft money, as unregulated soft money could be used unethically in elections and cause political corruption. However, the Supreme Court overturned this part of the act in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, as it struck down the BCRA provisions that prohibited corporations and unions from making both electioneering communications AND independent expenditures. I do hope that my opponent recognizes his/her fault in believing that the BCRA was unrelated to donations (independent expenditures), and now realizes that the Citizens United case that he/she is trying to defend did, in fact, allow corporations and unions once more to donate and campaign in elections using ways widely seen as corrupt, unethical, and unprincipled. My opponent continues his/her argument by asserting that I want to "imprison authors, filmmakers, pamphleteers, bloggers, publishers and anyone else who reports on politics" if they aren't journalists. This is hilariously false. Nowhere in my first argument did I express even an implication of desire that I want to arrest those in the media who are reporting on politics - nor do any of the millions of Americans who feel similarly that allowing corporations to donate and campaign in elections without the slightest of limits is corrupt and unjust. We simply want to achieve our honest goal by preventing corporations, unions, and other financial giants from completely manhandling elections by donating gruelingly massive amounts of money to help corporate-interest career politicians further influence and deregulate America's already corrupt Crony capitalistic economic system. Once more, I do not advocate the imprisonment of political commentators, nor do any of those who support the amendment that overturns the Citizens United ruling and allows federal elections to once more be controlled by everyday Americans instead of bankers and billionaires who have their own personal interests in mind. My opponent then begins to focus on David Bossie (I can only assume that he is who you were referring to, as you failed to spell his name correctly in your argument). Con asserts that Bossie, the current Chairman of Citizens United, was "threatened by the Bush administration with 5 years in prison for film-making. " My opponent portrays Bossie as an innocent man, though this is far from true. The Chairman's first political scandal occurred when he was hired as a political activist during the Whitewater controversy. Bossie was accused of tampering with telephone call recordings of former United States Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell by purposefully removing sections that would have cleared President Bill Clinton of wrongdoing. Bossie, as an operative for the GOP, tampered with the call recordings in order to make Clinton appear guilty of accusations against him, while in reality, the full recordings could have easily proved Clinton to be innocent. After the scandal, Bossie was fired, with even the GOP encouraging him to resign. If Bossie's nearly-successful attempt to character assassinate President Clinton doesn't convince you that there was reason to convict him, his next run-in with the law will. After becoming Chairman of the Citizens United, David Bossie lead the organization's 2008 attempt to distribute a film heavily critical of Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. A district court ruled that the distribution of the film violated the terms of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, as it was classified as an illegal corporation-paid electioneering campaign (advertisement) due to its obvious negative portrayal of Hillary Clinton, close time proximity to the 2008 Democratic Primaries, and immense funding by anti-Clinton organizations and groups. Bossie, however, neglected the district court's righteous decision, even though it was an obvious electioneering communication clearly in violation of the BCRA (this string of events was what later led to the Citizens United v. FEC ruling). As shown, there was an obvious reason to convict Bossie of charges due to his violation of the BCRA, though he was later cleared due to the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling. My opponent is creating a falsehood in attempting to portray Bossie as an innocent man, as he clearly violated the law multiple times, though escaped sentencing. The rest of my opponent's argument is essentially a collection of lies, fallacies, and ad hominem misquotes. First, Con continues the speculation that supporters of the BCRA and the hypothetical new amendment want to imprison those simply exercising their First Amendment rights. Nowhere can my opponent find an example of putting "authors, filmmakers, pamphleteers, bloggers, publishers and anyone else who reports on politics" in jail for their speech - the BCRA wasn't put in place to apprehend innocent political activists, only those who cheat and dodge honest campaign reform regulations (e. g. David Bossie) in order to donate unlimited amounts of money to candidates of their choice through independent expenditures or electioneering communications/advertisements. The point of the amendment is to make sure that corporations, unions, and individuals don't cheat our nation's already faulty political system by pouring loads of cash into elections in order to support corporate-interest, pro-Crony capitalistic candidates who truly don't care about the needs and interests of the common American. After all, the United States government and all that is included therein is by the People and for the People, not by the Corporations and for the Corporations. In the last section of my opponent's argument, he criticizes me for being off-topic listing campaign contributions of a recent Senate election. This is far from true. The point of the contribution list was to show how corporations could completely manhandle elections themselves - one candidate was funded by universities and progressive PACs, while the other was funded by corporations and banks. That election would've gone differently if the Citizens United case hadn't happened - instead of corporations and banks being in charge of who wins an election, the election would be funded by actual people with actual concerns and actual needs. Finally, my opponent decides to attribute some quotes to me. Con says that I'm telling Americans that they "are so terribly lacking in common sense that you need me to decide who can report on American politics" - I never said this and am slightly offended by my opponent attributing quotes to me that just aren't true. I request that Con doesn't base an argument off of misquotes and speculations next time, instead focusing on actual evidence from actual sources (note that my opponent's only source is a single broken YouTube link). I would like to conclude by making it apparent that my opponent failed to rebut any of my arguments from my first round, while I have succeeded in rebutting his. Unless my opponent succeeds in making valid points of his own and successfully creates rebuttals to mine, this debate might as well be over. Anyway, I would like to thank my opponent once more, and wish Con the very best of luck. Thanks! :D Sources: tinyurl. com/2g9kza tinyurl. com/akgyvkh tinyurl. com/m2kzcq2 tinyurl. com/28zpz4j tinyurl. com/9qf2ang