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

I thank my partner for the last submission. I have presented one example of how the Citizens United decision will harm our democratic traditions, and this example has not been rebutted. To recap: If the freedom of speech should be extended to groups such as corporations and foreign governments, then it is wrong to limit this freedom on the grounds that the speaker might have once not have been native to this country. This means that either our freedom of speech is not ‘inalienable,’ or the governments of other nations should have the right to drown out the will of the American voter with massive amounts of corporate money. The affirmative seems to juxtapose each notion of supremacy with some "obvious" harm that apparently undermines democracy without truly specifying how, thereby performing this grotesquely fallacious rhetorical association, in that anything that seems to contradict the idea of fairness or goodness is also contradicting the concept of democracy. I make no such assertion. I do regard the idea of “fairness” before the law as a democratic ideal, but this high opinion of mine is neither here nor there. I never make this argument. What I argue is that the CUD must limit our free speech rights, or our democratic authority. What we are discussing here is "whether or not the CUD, through its nature, is undermining democracy; whether or not the specific aspects of the decision themselves are undermining democracy." An argument about the potential harms of a decision is a major topicality error on the affirmative part and I ask for clarification. This argument makes two claims, neither of which defends the CUD against my argument, as presented in the first round. It is an attempt to avoid my propositions altogether, by dismissing them as irrelevant. Let’s look at this statement more closely. This argument has two propositions: 1. We are discussing, in the words of my partner, “whether or not the CUD, through its nature, is undermining democracy; whether or not the specific aspects of the decision themselves are undermining democracy.” And 2. My argument about the potential harms of a decision is a major topicality error on the affirmative part.” However, it is obvious that both propositions cannot exist at the same time, thus invalidating the entire argument. Harm to democracy (proposition 1) does in fact constitute the “potential harm” caused by the decision (proposition 2), and therefore does not represent a topical error. Any legislation or court decision could have potential negative consequences. The CUD, if imperfect, can be corrected through additional legislative remedies, and so does not harm our democratic institutions. I am arguing that the Citizens United decision does harm the democratic authority of the American people, and this argument has not been rebutted. Additionally, I am arguing that because of this, additional legislation is required in order to remedy this court decision. However, because it is a decision handed down by the Supreme Court, no legislative remedies are possible – anything that might second guess the CUD is, by definition, unconstitutional. The only possible legislation that could impact the case would require the extreme case of Constitutional amendment. The most likely alteration to the CUD would come from future SCOTUS decisions, which are likely to overturn or amend the decision. One such amendment would involve restricting the “freedom of speech” of corporations to exclude this right from those which are not native to America. Such a decision would, I argue, make the freedom of speech no longer inalienable. The Citizens United Decision strengthens free speech. Opposition to the CUD is support of censorship. Paid advertising is not “free.” It is a marketable commodity. Arguing that the purchase of such advertising is an inalienable right also necessarily argues that such rights can be restricted to those wealthy enough to afford it. Clearly, this would represent a major degradation in the democratic power of the American people, and therefore, should be considered an example of why the CUD should be modified or eliminated – and this was actually presented by my partner. Consider. The argument states that; 1. The ability to give large sums of money to politicians in an effort to influence their policy-making is an example of freedom of speech 2. Attempts to restrict giving large sums of money to politicians in an effort to influence their policy-making is an example of censorship 3. Therefore, the freedom of speech varies greatly from person to person, based factors such as wealth, status and class. Those with more disposable wealth have more access to our democracy than those with less. This logic renders our first right, the right to speak, subject to station, class, wealth, and position. Obviously, this cannot be considered democratic. Yet this is what CUD necessarily does, as a necessary condition of its existence. Other Arguments I will address my other propositions presented by my partner in time. For now, I feel it necessary to introduce other methods by which Citizens United undermines democracy. The perception of corruption is corruption Democracy cannot exist without widespread citizen involvement. The appearance of corruption, due to uncontrolled and secret funding of elections serves to alienate the public, increase cynicism, apathy and voter fatalism, thus reducing citizen involvement. As there is no credible way to claim that Citizens United has decreased this appearance, there is little means by which to argue that it does not undermine democracy by reducing voter participation. Money buys elections In over 80% of all federal elections, the party with the most campaign money wins the election. This fact makes it possible to accurately predict the winner of any federal election with a better than 80% accuracy level – just by knowing which candidate has more money, and knowing nothing else about that candidate or election. Local issues, party affiliation, positions of important issues, political skill level, and all other factors are, therefore, less important than money in determining the winner of federal elections. [1] Citizens United, by increasing the amount of money in elections, will allow those with more money to influence more elections. Those with less money, will necessarily become less important to our governmental decision makers who run for elected office, or answer to those who must run for elected office. This form of government closely resembles plutocracy, or “rule by the rich.” The incumbent nearly always wins Incumbents almost always win because money follows power. Those in office and can who can decide policy are the preferred targets of those seeking to influence their decisions. If these politicians want to be re-elected, they will enjoy an 80% likelihood of being returned to office if they use their station to attract more funding than their competitors. [2] Citizens United has increased the amount of money that is influencing our politicians In 2010, following the CUD, outside groups spent an staggering $294 million on political advertising. 46% of this money, accounting for $135 million, was spent by groups that did not provide any information about their sources of money. [3] If we cannot know who is buying our politicians, we cannot vote on the basis of that information. This reduces democratic oversight. [1] http://www.politifact.com... [2] http://www.opensecrets.org... [3]http://www.brennancenter.org...