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

"Not in a democratic state. Democracy, by definition, requires that all citizens are seen as equals in the eyes of the state " with no regard to station, wealth, titles or class. " The United States is not a democracy. It is, by definition, a constitutional republic that has democratic elements. Since democracy does not entirely exist within the United States, the argument that Citizens United undermines democracy as whole is absurd because it does not exist as a whole already. What we are arguing is whether the existing democratic elements are undermined. The primary form of democracy within the United States is the representative, indirect form. A wealthy individual has the same vote as an improverished individual. This democratic element is not being undermined. However, the plutocracy exists merely within the marketplace of ideas. This is naturally occuring, and Citizens United does not do much to change this. Prior to Citizens United, if Bill Gates released a statement condemning the President of the United States, this would get a lot more attention and hold more influence than it would if some low-middle class individual uploaded a video to YouTube complaining. Money is just another element of this inequality of being heard. Citizens United only streamlines this concept. It does not undermine the democratic system whatsoever; it remains intact. "Yes, it could " but it could also evidence more corruption or personal wealth. " This argument is not going to go anywhere. There is no evidence supporting either side. This is merely a potential argument; a "this could be happening but we can"t know" argument. Therefore, this argument just cannot be used to affirm or negate the topic. It is another "what if" argument that does not contribute to the active verb "undermines". Money however does influence behavior. . . Citizens United allows corporations to hire the very governmental agencies that are regulating them. Citizens United does not change the fact that money influences behavior. It only gives it another medium to do so. This influence is protected under the first amendment. If a corporation wishes to pay someone to excersize political speech, they have every right to do so " this is what Citizens United upheld. Citizens United does not allow corporations to hire the very governmental agencies that are regulating them. My opponent"s citation on this was a link to the Wikipedia article on PACs. There was no evidence indicating that this change happens. "Citizens United makes this element even more crucial . . . There is no reason that the same rule could not be applied to all federal elections " and work exactly as well as it does in the Texas House. " This argument is not valid. Firstly, the Speaker of the House of the Texas House of Representatives is elected internally: The Texas Constitution requires the House of Representatives, each time a new legislature convenes, to choose one of its own members to serve as speaker. Therefore, this process is alienated from the people and therefore does not need to be an expensive campaign. Federal Elections hold volumes more weight than state elections do, and therefore political speech becomes a lot more crucial. With a growing population, one needs more money to get more attention. ". . . we have no functioning democracy now " regardless of the Citizens United ruling. Attempting to influence the already elected with money and gifts should never be tolerated by any electorate. This is aristocratic rule, and something that Americans have fought wars to remove from our politics. " Two problems with this argument: To say we have no functioning democracy means that there is no democracy left for the CUD to undermine, and therefore doesn"t. There are limits on these gifts " a total of $100 except from spouses or personal friends. Lobbyists may not pay for gifts, official travel, legal defense funds, or charitable contributions to groups controlled by senators. Outside earned income may not exceed 15 percent of a senator"s salary. "There is no definition of democracy that allows for an unelected minority of decision makers to overrule the expressed will of the people. " There is no real risk of corrupting the democratic process or free speech. [1] "Rich individuals and talented polemicists have always been permitted to put out quantities and qualities of speech that may exert a disproportionate influence on society, but political opponents and voters have always been trusted to evaluate these speakers" arguments for themselves, respond with counter-arguments, and ultimately make up their own minds about the truth of any matter of controversy. " "Citizens United case made these laws unenforceable. " Once again, this is a potential fear, and was equally possible prior to the Citizens United case. Citizens United merely streamlines the issues. Citizens United had no legal impact on the nondisclosure of the identity of contributors to certain not-for-profit groups. [2] "I feel that Citizens United destroys . . . our constitution. " Citizens United merely upheld and affirmed the first amendment. Free speech for corporations has strong judicial precedent. To quote Justice Scalia in his concurring opinion: "The first amendment has long been extended beyond isolated individuals to groups and associations whose members gather for a wide variety of purposes ranging from political to commercial. The Democratic party, the Sierra club, and the New York Times aren"t individuals, but their speech nonetheless falls under the umbrella of First Amendment protection. But the formalistic obsession with whether a corporation should have the legal status of a "person" with a "right" to free speech quite misses the substantive issues at stake. " Nothing else is as important as getting enough campaign cash to win that 80% likelihood that they will be re-elected. Citizens United is just a boogeyman that won"t affect elections. Money has always been a crucial issue in the electoral process. [3] "Who Wins? " Firstly, my opponent dropped several of my arguments that lead to inevitable concession on his part. I leave I up to the voter to determine these, as my character count is waning. The Citizens United ruling is a law that protects the free speech of an enormous number of groups of individuals. My opponent claimed that this only protected the interest of the "White, Landowning Man", and other rich individuals. The primary interest in the Citizens United ruling was to protect free speech, the key to democracy. Corporations have every right to participate in political speech, along with the voice of any other individual. All of these negative consequences are censorship. I thank my opponent for an engaging debate, and I am sad that the character count has bottlenecked the brilliant potential of this debate. I ask my voters to carefully consider what free speech is, and if congress has any right to abridge it. [1] . http://www.nationalreview.com... [2] . http://www.thenation.com... [3]. http://articles.hearld-mail.com...