on balance does the supremes court decision in citezens united harm the election process

First, my opponent says that this ruling will help increase voter turnout. But keep in mind that the court case was ruled in 2010. In the last presidential election, in 2008, about 130 million people voted. But in this presidential election, there were only about 117 million voters. That argument should be dropped and is false. My opponent says that this ruling helps inform voters, but that is not true. In fact, some of these ads that my opponent talks about do not inform voters, but simply slander the opposing candidate. My opponent says that this court ruling prevents both corporations from getting the upper hand, but that is not true at all. It allows the person with the most money and the most money to spend to have the greater advantage. That was proven in this presidential election. President Barack Obama not only had 100 more million dollars than Mitt Romney, but he also spent more money than Mitt Romney. And as you can see, President Barack Obama won. My opponent has failed to prove that this ruling increases transparency. He has failed to provide a definition of what transparency means in that argument. Also, he is false in his information. Because of this court case, corporations are now viewed as people. And because of that, they have the right to keep all information to themselves. My opponent refutes my first contention with the argument of USA's murder rate in comparison to UK, but the problem with that is that UK has far less people than the USA for people to murder. Also, proof that the media is misleading people. Barry Glassner says that because of the media "In the first half of the 1990's US cities spent at least $10 billion to purge asbestos from public schools, even though removing asbestos from buildings posed a greater health hazard than leaving it in place." As you can see, because of the media, people were made to believe something that would harm their kids to actually help their kids. My opponent said that I said that citizens will automatically believe anything on TV, but I never said that at all. I said that if given enough exposure, people can be made to believe things on TV. My opponent is altering the words I say to prove his point, but if I were to tell him to pull one quote from my case in which I say those exact words, then he would not be able to because I didn't say that. My opponent says that this court ruling doesn't allow corporations to donate to politicians, but fails to realize that because of this ruling, superPacs and corporations were able to donate about $50 million to President Barack Obama. He also contradicts himself in trying to refute my argument. He says and I quote "does not allow corporations or unions to donate money directly to a canadite but requires them to establish third party political action commitee's that are required to operate independently of any party" What this is simply saying is that corporations can't donate money, but the corporations can get a group of people from the corporation to donate the money to the politician. This is proving my point in saying that a person, or a group of people, can donate the corporation's money to the politician. So in fact, his refutation falls. He also says that I said the Koch Brother's donated money to Texas, but that is not true. I said that the Koch Brother's donated money to Rick Perry. As you can see, my opponent is twisting my words to prove his purpose. Proof that the Koch Brother's are doing what they are doing: http://www.dailykos.com...# Sources http://www.amnation.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...