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

Democracy cannot coexist with plutocracy. By making American federal elections more dependent upon the will of the wealthy few, the will of the many is necessarily diminished. The Citizens United decision gives free reign to influence our government to Sultans and CEOs, and opens elected offices to a legal bidding war. My opponent has failed to respond to the most crucial argument I’m making: political equality and economic equality are two separate things. It is the very nature of our constitutional republic (not democracy) to have discrepancies in external efficacy among the economic classes. My opponent has also failed to respond to the “Zuckerberg” argument I make that demonstrates variance in the power of speech. Once again, some people don’t have their voices heard as effectively as others, which my opponent uses to display apparent damage to free speech. This is not the case. The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, and neither enumerates or implies the freedom to be heard nor equally heard. This dilution of the will of the many cannot be attributed to the CUD, because it’s legally impossible. Now, the dilution of the political voice can, but it’s been present in society due to population growth. Your typical low-middle class citizen does not have much of a voice in the political world. It takes initiative and action, and unfortunately, through our free market, money. However, this does not undermine democracy. Super PACS are not the only political voice in the game. Voices with legitimate political points and concerns are often heard through word of mouth via degradation of communicational barriers (Internet). The rhetorically strong but contextually weak advertisements from Super PACs infesting media are becoming more of a nuisance than everything, inadvertently encourages the legitimacy and rationality of political voice. This is plutocratic, not democratic. I shall dwell this round upon the critical fact that I put forward in R1: More than 80% of all federal elections are won by the politician with the most money. My opponent initially ignored and later unsuccessfully refuted my argument provided below:“More money could also imply more populous political support. Just because more money is contributed to the election does not mean the will of the many is being undermined. It could just mean that there are literally more supporters of this candidate. ”He later, at the end of his argument, said that two facts disproved this claim; first, that fewer Americans are donating to electioneering, and secondly, that nations, backing corporations based in America, can use money taxed away from their citizens to conduct electioneering and back room bribery in the US -- thanks to CU. These two arguments in no way refute the likelihood of more money in elections implying majority support. This argument essentially implies that Americans are terribly vulnerable to rhetoric and that the contributors are solely composed of corrupt foreign shell corporations. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate this. Corporations that are donating could literally be small to medium local businesses that just happen to be incorporated. After all, there are 29,413,039 established firms in the United States [1]. Not all of these are giant mega-corporations that want to exploit our economy and ruin democracy for their own profit. This argument is terribly cynical and holds no normative weight. Moving onto his arguments: 1. The influence of money in elections is not disputed by my partnerI've disputed this again and again. Once again, the explicit electoral process is completely insulated from monetary influence. Money doesn't vote. Everything else is a persuasion game. He then later makes the argument that it’s wrong that middle-class Americans can never be elected. In today’s world, you need money to be heard. Equality of results does not exist. Not every politician is going to have a Horatio Alger story. My opponent finally moves on to discussing the issue of electoral insulation.2. But I deny that this is a necessary and sufficient component of democracy. CU eliminates most candidates from voter endorsement or scrutiny long before any ballots are cast. 80% of all federal elections are won by the best funded candidate. Those potential candidates who lack high-level funding cannot compete, and therefore cannot win support from either major party. This means they will never be tested by voters. My opponent fails to regard the political virtue in earning financial endorsement. Once again, not every funding corporation is going to be a corrupt foreign shell corporation. Getting money for your campaign is a crucial element of the political game. Raising and accounting for this money requires a staff of fund-raisers, lawyers, and accountants. You also need a press secretary, a travel scheduler, an advertising specialist, a direct-mail company, and a pollster, all of whom must be paid, plus a large number of volunteers in at least those states that hold early primary elections or party caucuses. These elements were necessary even before CU. Corporations are just now an additional way to earn financial endorsement. Saying this is wrong due to the potential of corruption is merely speculative and can be extended to any monetary source.3. Even if voters retain the ability to cast legally binding votes, we have no ability to select from a wide pool of candidates, thanks to the need to field only the most well-funded candidates. The aforementioned argument can be applied to this argument as well. If people want to be heard, they’re going to need money, and they’re going to need a lot of it. With the developing population and globalization, it’s becoming more and more difficult to get your voice heard, so to do it and attract the attention of many is going to be quite an effort. 4. My partner argues that the electorate has a few feeble abilities left to it. But these should never be considered the totality of democracy. When a constituent visits the office of her congressman at the same time as a billionaire or donor, she knows that she will be made to wait. This is plutocracy, and it is as wrong as it is anti-democratic. This is rhetorical plutocracy. I once again reference the “Zuckerberg” argument. Some people will have an easier time having their voices heard. This billionaire, however, does not exert political inequality. There is legislation preventing quid pro quo and the most the billionaire will do is attempt to influence the already elected politician.5. CU has overturned two decades of legal precedent, and has rendered unconstitutional sixty years of public law – eliminating the will of the people in all of these cases. There can be no definition of ‘democracy’ that includes such an act. Landmark cases happen all the time [2]. There is nothing wrong with overturning some previous legislation. Legislators still struggle to decipher the “true” intentions of the framers. This does not undermine democracy. Touching on rebuttals:SpecificityI addressed the catch-22 above. See the issue of freedom of speech v. freedom of being heard. As for specificity, I simply require my opponent pose his arguments in a democratic fashion. I clarified this in my first response, in that my opponent inadvertently argued that “anything that seems to contradict the idea of fairness or goodness is also contradicting the concept of democracy. ”It is not sufficient to simply say that it is absurd. I substantiated it with logic above. Shall we go over evidence that highly-positioned lobbyists guide politicians as laws are drafted? Once again, quid pro quo is illegal and cannot be considered in this debate, since it is demarcated by legislation. Money buys elections. Citizens United makes this worse. See my response to plutocracy. [1] . http://www.census.gov... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...