On balance, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United vs FEC harms the election process

Thanks for debating with me and I hope we have a great debate! We would like to start with a proper framework for today"s debate First, some Definitions Election Process- Includes voting, free speech, campaigning Harm- We would like to define undermine subvert the base or foundation of insidiously (oxford+merriam) (ADD IF----the NY Times and commoncause.org defines the Citizens United vs (FEC) as The Supreme Court"s decision permits corporations, unions and other special interests to spend as much as they like to advocate the election or defeat of political candidates.) Obsv 1- Time sensitivity- Harm refers to any harms now, or any harms that are imminent. My opponents have to show you, Judge, any harm of great magnitude to the election process that is current or imminent, and we have to show you how without this decision does not harm the election process, and might even help it. Contention 1- Corporate Contributions Increase Voter Turnout Corporate contributions create ads and messages causing an increase in the number of voters, increasing participation in democracy. A 2010 Common Dreams article expresses that since corporations are free to spend funds on political ads, they spend an infinite amount of money on political ads. This obviously increases the number of political ads in the united states. Actually according to a wnyc article published in May 2012 , 70% of political ads were negative in the 2012 election. This all might seem bad, however, A Illinois Wesleyan University study found that increased voter turnout is due to negative television advertisements and that positive advertisements have no significant effect on turnout. By fostering an emotional response in voters, negative or attack advertisements and messages increase voter turnout. An NYC magazine study showed that negative ad-filled campaigns throughout history have been largely successful: In the Massachusetts senate races, Ted Kennedy volleyed Mitt Romney with negative ads, resulting in Kennedy"s victory by 17%. George W. Bush used this same technique against John Kerry in 2004, and he won by a 6.5% margin. The impact is clear- Voter turnout is better for the democratic processes because the people"s voices will be heard. With corporations funding campaigns and producing ads, there is an increased voter turnout, and therefore the democratic process is not harmed. Contention 2-Corporations are beneficial to society, thus they should have the rights of citizens Corporations have the rights of free speech protected under the first Amendment, just like a person. Huffington Post states that Corporations are the foundation of wealth creation, innovation, jobs, markets and the economy in our society. If they spend unlimited money to a certain candidate, the companies could save money, leading to more jobs. Corporations are run by people, help create jobs, and are consisted of people. Obviously, the corporations should be considered as a person. A Gallup Poll showed that Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech. The impact- is that since companies consist of people and help the people, when companies get it their way, the benefits carry on to the citizens. Thus if a company funds a candidate that gives them tax breaks, the company saving money can directly impact to the workers at the company getting higher salaries. Thus when people have reliable jobs, they have more time to stay informed on election news, thus leading to a more informed populous, hereby improving the election process. Contention 3- Super PACs are creating Competition Super PACs, which take the money from corporations and donate them to candidates, are actually creating competition between the political candidates bettering democracy and voter turnout. A February 2012 Slate Magazine article gave us is the Republican Primaries and how without Super PACs, Mitt Romney would win by a huge margin. But since there are Super PACs, there is a more competitive race for the fight for president, and this keeps other alternative candidates in the election too. Because of this, there are more choices in the election, and thus, with more candidates to fit these voter"s ideologies, there is more voter turnout. Another study conducted by the CATO organization was published in 2002 which showed that without PACs, the Mccain-Feingold Act would apply and most donations would go to the incumbents instead of the challenger. With the PACs, the current law made by the Citizen"s United decision would apply and money would go to both candidates. This makes the election fair and competitive. The impact is clear- With the more competitive environment, elections are tighter causing more voter turnout. However, if elections are not competitive, voters will not want to vote, as they already know who will win. This will lower participation in democracy resulting in harming the election process.