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

Many thanks to my debate partner for proposing this discussion. I am rarely afforded an opportunity to defend my views on the subject against a heartfelt opposing argument, and so I am looking forward to better understanding the “other side” in this matter. It is rare that any voice is given to the view that money does not influence our political system, or that the Citizens United Decision (CUD, to save space) has not worsened this situation. It will be my task in this discussion to demonstrate at least one way by which the CUD undermines our nation’s democratic traditions. There are many. I trust that our audience is already aware of several of these; therefore, I will dedicate this round to one that I feel is overlooked, and which involves a sinister catch-22 for democracy. I will elaborate in a moment, but briefly, the CUD must – necessarily – either force Americans to share our political system with other nations, or must significantly reconsider the right to free speech, making this right contingent on the identity of the speaker. I am not making a polemicist argument here – I will show how the CUD must provide for at least one of these conditions to exist, and neither is democratic. Here's how it works. Citizens United has allowed corporations to make direct expenditures that are intended to openly influence federal elections. This allows 501(c)(4) nonprofits to fund electioneering communications and fund political careers while keeping the source of that money secret from the public. In other words, the laws that currently prevent foreign governments from influencing American elections can no longer prevent such interference. After Citizens United, nothing can prevent a shell corporation set up by a foreign government from using fake “customers” who produce on-paper “profits” to influence our elections. Nothing that prevents this exists anywhere in United States law, and those laws that can help reduce this problem may now be unconstitutional - thanks to Citizens United. Worldwide commerce is becoming increasingly integrated thanks to globalization. A firm can be headquartered in one country, yet conduct most of its business on the other side of the world. Foreign-owned corporations already lobby the US government, and many of these operate as agents of their nations of origin. The Citizens United decision allows the formation of “Super PACS” which cannot be required to disclose where the money they spend on our influencing our elections comes from. This argument normally inspires eye-rolling from defenders, who point to laws that they say will prevent such mischief. One such law is actually an FEC regulation (the FEC was defeated by the Citizens United Decision.) - [11 CFR 110.20(i)]. This law states that, “A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person’s Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.” [1] Furthermore, the SCOTUS (this is how I shall abbreviate “Supreme Court”, to save space) has recently upheld such restrictions. [2] I point these laws out to prove that elected officials are aware that political donations such as these influence their decisions. Otherwise, why prevent out-state actors? However, it remains unclear if similar restrictions can possibly be upheld – the SCOTUS will need to determine if “customers’” money can be somehow segregated from the profits of those corporations that seek to influence our political system, and prohibited from use, based on the nationality of those customers. It does not seem to be possible, from my perspective. Let us suppose two scenarios, one where such money can be identified and removed from our political process, and one where no attempt is made to do so. So here is the catch-22, which forces the CUD to become antidemocratic no matter how it is applied. If corporate funding of political campaigns is “free speech” then it is wrong to remove this ability from those corporations that are American, but whose profits come from outside the US. If we allow these corporations to exercise their “freedom of speech,” then they may write the American voters out of the American political system. In other words, there is no way that the CUD will not harm democratic ideals – in this instance. The CAD argues that corporations should not be prevented from exercising their “free speech rights” simply because they are corporations. However, if foreign corporations, or corporations with large amounts of foreign shareholders, such as Ford Motors, are prevented from such participation, then the First Amendment can no longer be said to allow free speech as an “inalienable right.” Free speech rights will then vary depending on the identity and nation of origin of the speaker. If the speaker is an American corporation that ever was “foreign,” then this fully American entity will no longer be afforded the same rights as other American entities – such as corporations that never were foreign-owned. If a corporation is exercising its “free speech rights” thanks to profits made from foreign customers, then that corporation could be in danger of having its First Amendment rights partially stripped. Justification: Shell corporations can be set up by foreign governments who want to influence the decisions that our nation makes. These corporations can have as their sole shareholder and sole “customer” the government of Iran, North Korea, China, Pakistan, or any other nation. These corporations can be owned and operated entirely by Americans – circumventing any law related to foreign entities There is evidence [2] that the SCOTUS is aware of this threat, and has begun taking steps to partially reverse the CUD. The very fact that SCOTUS is taking these measures proves absolutely that these men understand that money does, in fact, influence our democracy. However, by removing these abilities from outside nations, SCOTUS must also necessarily remove what they have sanctified as “free speech rights” from American entities such as corporations – based on the identity of that entity. Won't foreign nations still influence our government - through traditional lobbying? The answer is yes, however the Citizens United Decision allows them to use unlimited amounts of money - collected from their nations' taxpayers, and then secretly use that money to influence our elections in the United States. Citizens United also prevents anyone from ever learning who is funding our nations politicians - which makes the problem much worse.Should foreign entities have free speech or not?The SCOTUS has ruled that not all speech is constitutionally protected free speech. Espionage, lying to police, threats, and "shouting fire in a crowded theater" are not considered to be protected by the First Amendment. Added to these are anti-bribery laws which limit the gifts that can be given to elected officials. I believe that foreign agents should be allowed the freedom to speak, but not to become professional gift-givers, whose gifts are intended to influence the decisions being made by the American government. This is not a xenophobic argument against foreign agents - but an argument against legalized bribery. [1] http://www.gpo.gov... [2] http://www.fec.gov... [3] The Harvard Law Reviews Association. “‘Foreign’Campaign Contributions and the First Amendment. Harvard Law Review, 110.8(1986): 1886-1903