Campaign Financing Should Be Heavily Regulated

Thanks for having me, AdamCass. Let's make it a fun one!Since this so closely resembles a policy debate, that is how I will approach it.Essentially, my opponent proposed three warrants for his plan to be implemented. These will be labeled...P1. Mo' Money, Mo' Problems (Money in politics corrupts)P2. Poor People Problems (Most Americans can't keep up with the rich Americans)P3. No Mo' Problems (CFR [campaign finance regulation] solves by making things equal)I will address each of these in turn. Overall I hope to show why each of his arguments don't stand, and show, in the words of Catholic University Law Review, that "the First Amendment is not a loophole to be plugged by unconstitutional legislation in misguided efforts to "reform" campaign finance."[1]Let's get started.P1. Mo' Money, Mo' ProblemsMy opponent's point here is simple. He says that money influences politics. But is that really true? If so, how much weight does money actually have in determining what makes a successful campaign?Let's look at what the experts have to say.Professors John de Figueiredo (PhD in business and public policy), James Snyder Jr.(PhD in economics), and Stephen Ansolabehere (PhD from Harvard in political science) stated that: "In this paper, we argue that campaign contributions are not a form of policy-buying, but are rather a form of political participation and consumption. We summarize the data on campaign spending, and show through our descriptive statistics and our econometric analysis that individuals, not special interests, are the main source of campaign contributions. Moreover, we demonstrate that campaign giving is a normal good, dependent upon income, and campaign contributions as a percent of GDP have not risen appreciably in over 100 years- if anything, they have probably fallen."[2]There you have it. No buying policies. No individuals being drowned out by lobbyists. No skyrocketing increases of money in politics. Most donations are people with a just and respectable desire to contribute to our democratic system.While I think this adequately addresses the point, I would like to address one last thing, "special interest groups". You see, these groups have gained a "bad rap", if you will. They have a tendency to donate large sums of money to certain candidates who will promote the causes that the group has a special interest in (e.g. Pro-life groups, Marijuana Legalization groups, etc.). Because of how much money these groups tend to donate, and how the candidates seem to respond, a common myth of "policy-buying" is propitiated. But we must remember one thing. These groups are individuals, such as you and me, who have rallied together for a common cause. They pool their money together, gather funds, and help candidates with their interests already in mind get elected.So remember. These groups aren't scary external forces. They're groups of concerned citizens participating in our system, and they have every right to do so.Next let's talk about the disparity between the 0.01% and the 99.99%. A.K.A...P2. Poor People ProblemsWhile it's easy to get agitated thinking about your vote being drowned out by the "rich guy". There are two main flaws with this argument.First of all... the little guy seems to have the most say when it comes to campaigns, as shown by William Rinner for Yale Law Review: "The 2008 election cycle challenged the received wisdom of the campaign finance reform movement that political money is the "root of all evil" in democratic politics. Record amounts of money flowed into campaign war chests, but the sheer volume of political money did not deter even small donations.Citizens with little previous connection to democratic politics offered small money donations in record amounts, playing their part in the historic moment. Political money, rather than hindering or discouraging participation in the democratic process, instead allowed citizens to express their support and association in small but meaningful quantities."[3]So... the biggest contributors are the little guys? Yep! So we see that, really, the rich aren't buying campaigns at all. And especially not elections.That's the second point I'd like to make. No one can buy your vote (without your consent, of course).This point is more logical than anything. We hold the ultimate say in all our elections. Sure, maybe the money decides who gets their face on the t.v. more times. But ultimately, we decide who gets to sit in the Oval Office (or the House, Senate, your local town hall, etc.). You literally can't "buy an election". The people will always have the only say that really matters.Finally, let's adress...P3. No Mo' ProblemsBasically, Pro would have you believe that CFR makes everything better. It doesnt. I know this because... it's been done before. Time and again, we have attempted to fix the campaign finance system with regulation... and time and again it's caused more trouble than it was worth. But don't take my word for it. Dr. Ronald Faucheux(PhD in political science) consented with my view, saying "Insanity is doing something over and over, but expecting a different result. That pretty well describes campaign finance reform in America. The worse the system gets, the more we regulate it. The more we regulate it, the worse it gets."[4]But why does regulation make things so awful? Because political speech (which is what political contributions were ruled to be, as per the Citizens United v. FEC supreme court decision[5]) wasn't meant to be regulated! It's your right to spend as much money as you want to in an election. If we start limiting how much people can spend with their hard earned money, then we are stripping them of their First Amendment rights.ConclusionThere is no need for CFR. The "problem" of money in politics is largely exaggerated and quite harmless in reality. There is no external force deciding our elections. We have an impact, and ultimately hold the final say. Also, the restrictions suggested by Pro would strip people of their Constitutional rights and violate Constiutional law.With all my opponent's contentions effectively rebutted, I look forward to his response.Sources[1] http://scholarship.law.edu...[2] http://cori.missouri.edu...[3] http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu...[4] http://www.theatlantic.com...[5] http://www.supremecourt.gov...;