Is funding of super-pacs justified in a democracy
Debate Rounds (4)
Intro: I believe that super-pacs are not justified in a Democracy, because it unfairly represents the people that cannot fund.
Good Luck to my opponent.
Super-Pac-funding of a candidate
I first want to start off my thanking my opponent for joining this debate, and the best of luck to the person that wins.
Funding of candidates used to sound like a good idea. But, now it has became a horrible idea, because it produces inequality between candidates, and misrepresents what the people really want. For example, statistically proven the candidate with the most funding usually wins. For example, we can look at the presidential election in 2012. Barack Obama's campaign raised a total of 715 million dollars, They used 660 million dollars. They are in debt 7 million dollars. But, that his how much the winner spent. Lets look at how much Mitt Romney spent. Romney's campaign raised a total of 446 million dollars. He spent 433 million dollars. His debts are 1.2 million dollars. This is unfair, and is not a democracy, but just pure capitalism. This unfairly demonstrates the people that did not spend as much as Romney or Obama. It unfairly represents a Democracy.
As we all know republicans have taken over the house and the senate. But was this a truly democratic election. If the American population suddenly loves Republicans, than how come the middle class say( 62% say "a lot" of the blame lies with Congress, while 54% say the same about banks and financial institutions, 47% about large corporations, 44% about the Bush administration, 39% about foreign competition and 34% about the Obama administration. Just 8% blame the middle class itself a lot.") Republicans statistically get more funding than Democrats. The democratic voice was not heard, therefore the Republicans lost.
The reason funding of super-pacs are justified in a democracy is because, pacs or super-pacs are the engine of democracies; they are inseparable.
A “Super-pac” is a Political Action Committee (PAC), may engage in political spending independently of the campaigns, for example, funding media propaganda, etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org...).
Democracies are an unstable form of government moving in the direction of an oligarch, the final resting place of a Super-PAC in the position of governance.
The founding Fathers of the US recognized democracies are an unstable form of government, and decided to form a republic. Con would find a good overview of the US in the following YouTube video presentation:
Right from the beginning the powerbrokers been challenging Constitutional limits in “baby steps,” having the side effect, intentional or not, moving away from a republic towards a democracy. The first step is the formation of Political Parties. Political Parties need money to spread the good word, and they became creative in obtaining money; hence, Super PACs.
Over the last 100 years the democracy pace picked up where the Senate, once selected by the State governments, now are selected by popular vote, and the Electoral College (who elects the President) became a facade for the popular vote. The popular vote was only to elect a local representative for the House of Representatives. This way the local representative candidates did not need lots of money, or party affiliation, to campaign.
This democracy movement continues today, and will eventually end in an oligarch (the final resting place of a Super-PAC ruled by committee). How is this done? By the government controlled educational system. And it is working, for example, by the mere title of this debate, implies Con has been programed to think the US is a “democracy.” One should question, why a government controlled high school or college should not have a required course in the study of the US Constitution? A Civics course that includes the Federalist Papers. Why would the US government not embrace such education for the voting citizen?
When a democracy becomes a welfare state, the ones receiving money from the government (eventually the majority), will naturally vote for the ruling-class who supports more social programs, as the state becomes an oligarch, a Super-PAC onto itself, controlling the redistribution of “bread and circuses,” healthcare, Social Security, etc., by committee. And in the end, taking away most of one's freedom in a tyrannical state.
The infrastructure of this oligarch is in place, and for lack of a better term, let's call it the Administration branch, which is not part of the three branches defined in US Constitution; therefore, this branch is an unconstitutional branch. The Administration branch consist of hundreds of departments (IRS, NSA, EPA, Education Department, Obamacare, etc.). This branch employs hundreds of thousands of nonelected officials writing regulations, having the same power as law, to control, monitor us, etc. Today's elected officials are enjoying government perks, too busy campaigning for reelection or for the party, representing the lobbyists, while telling the people pleasantries.
Therefore, Super-PACs, or an equivalent thereof, are the engine of democracies. In other words, if one outlaws Super-PACs, something else will take its place for the powerbrokers to move an uninformed majority in a democracy in the direction of an oligarch.
The solution to eliminate the Super-PAC oligarch, reinstate the US Constitution and require education on the Constitution, for today the US is in a post Constitutional era.
My opponent on the other hand thinks that super-pacs should stay because our governments could become an oligarch(
a person who belongs to a small group of people who govern or control a country) I keep trying to search through my opponent's arguments and find proof of a country becoming an oligarch. So right now my opponent's statement is invalid. If you could please elaborate on a oligarch, that would be a great help.
"Democracies are based on "rule of law."
Democracy is based on the “rule of the majority.”
Republic is based on “representation.”
“...the US combined Democracy with Republic.”
Where is that stated in the US Constitution?
“If you could please elaborate on a oligarch, that would be a great help.”
An oligarch is defined in the YouTube presentation I referenced in Round 2. This presentation also gives examples of democracies becoming oligarchs and compares a constitutional republic to other forms of government:
“My opponent on the other hand thinks that super-pacs should stay because our governments could become an oligarch...”
Where did Pro state, “super-pacs should stay?”
Pro stated the following, “The reason funding of super-pacs are justified in a democracy is because, pacs or super-pacs are the engine of democracies; they are inseparable.”
Pro does not support “super-pacs” because Pro does not support “democracies.” In modern time, democracies require large sums of money for media propaganda to spread its dogma to the masses (across the US); hence, “super-pacs” or equivalent thereof. Get rid of the democracy and “super-pacs” goes away.
Pro made it clear in the US Constitutional republic, the scope of public vote (the vote by US citizens) is only for local representation. Local representation does not need large sums of money to broadcast the candidate's message throughout the US, only local broadcast and campaigning is necessary.
Ariesx forfeited this round.
Think about it. In our modern day, a super-pac, or an equivalent thereof, is part of a democracy were one dollar is equal to one vote in the political arena for mass propaganda.
This is why we need to restore our republic in accordance to the US Constitution.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made better, clearer arguments and rebuttals, used sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate