Reverse Fec vs. Citizens United
PRO: My partner and I affirm resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process.
For clarity, we offer the following observations:
Observation 1: According to U.S. Legal the electoral process is the method by which a person is elected into office. Thus, any individual vote or dollar given in support of a certain candidate affects the election process.
Observation 2: The CU ruling affected many other things indirectly. Since, these things are still part of the election process they must be weighed in today’s debate.
Observation 3: For my opponents to win today’s debate they must prove the benefits of the ruling:
1. Outweigh the harms
2. Come only from the ruling
3. Affect the election process
And now on to our case,
Contention 1: Super PACs
Subpoint A: Power in the hands of the few.
Super PACs are the way that the few rich people in America get to control the influences in an election. These people and corporations donate large sums of money to Super PACs in order to dominate the amount of money being given to candidates. According to a study done by the U.S. Public Interest Group, “93% of the itemized funds raised by Super PACs from individuals in 2011 came in contributions of at least $10,000” and came from 23 out of every 10 million people in America. CNN reported on this saying “more than half of this money coming from just 37 people who each gave $500,000 or more.” Also reporting on this study was Politico which said "Super PACs raised about $181 million in the last two years -- with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people." Since the election process is all about equal voice for all, through Super PACs, the CU ruling is harming the election process.
Subpoint B: With great money comes great corruption.
With large, unlimited amounts of money being spent through Super PACs, corruption is inevitable. Corruption is able to spread
For clarity, we offer the following observations:
Observation 1: According to U.S. Legal the electoral process is the method by which a person is elected into office. Thus, any individual vote or dollar given in support of a certain candidate affects the election process.
Observation 2: The CU ruling affected many other things indirectly. Since, these things are still part of the election process they must be weighed in today’s debate.
Observation 3: For my opponents to win today’s debate they must prove the benefits of the ruling:
1. Outweigh the harms
2. Come only from the ruling
3. Affect the election process
And now on to our case,
Contention 1: Super PACs
Subpoint A: Power in the hands of the few.
Super PACs are the way that the few rich people in America get to control the influences in an election. These people and corporations donate large sums of money to Super PACs in order to dominate the amount of money being given to candidates. According to a study done by the U.S. Public Interest Group, “93% of the itemized funds raised by Super PACs from individuals in 2011 came in contributions of at least $10,000” and came from 23 out of every 10 million people in America. CNN reported on this saying “more than half of this money coming from just 37 people who each gave $500,000 or more.” Also reporting on this study was Politico which said "Super PACs raised about $181 million in the last two years -- with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people." Since the election process is all about equal voice for all, through Super PACs, the CU ruling is harming the election process.
Subpoint B: With great money comes great corruption.
With large, unlimited amounts of money being spent through Super PACs, corruption is inevitable. Corruption is able to spread