The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

"Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,152 times Debate No: 29289
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I stand in affirmation of the resolved, "Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process."

Contention 1: Misinformation in advertisements and the correlation of spending and winning.

According to the New York Times roughly 85 percent of campaign money is spent on television and radio advertisements, and according to ABC news roughly 94 percent of political television and radio ads are misleading to potential voters. For example last February, Restore Our Future, the pro-Mitt Romney Super PAC, pushed an ad portraying Newt Gingrich as a supporter of China's one-child policy.(Which he opposed) Candidates spending $1.5 million, won in their office 61% of the time according to a study done by Americans for Campaign Reform. According to the same study less than 1% of challengers and 5% of open seat candidates spending $700,000 or less won election.

So this proves that there is indeed a direct correlation between winning your campaign and campaign spending.

Contention 2: Corruption of politicians. Then and Now

There are specific factors contributing to modern corruption, but I just want to point out for the sake of perspective that I am not saying that we have never had political corruption before modern times. For example Bill Clinton lied in the 90′s. Nixon had his Watergate scandal in the 70′s. But I am saying that the corruption has drastically increased. The corruption to which I am referring is the phenomenon of money in politics. Just recently on the "Corruption Report Card" no state received an A yet again, the least corrupt state was New Jersey scoring an 87 percent. This "Report Card" is an easy way for the average person to understand just how corrupt a state is the lower the corruption the higher the grade. No state has received an A since 2009 which was taken a few months before the repeal of Citizens United v. Federal Electoral Commissions.


I will be refuting the pro and therefore taking the con side in this debate.

I would like to analyze your first point:

First, may I have a date, article title, or link to those sources cited?
Next, I will analyze the NY Times statistic:
85% of funds are spent on tv/radio ads

This doesn't say they are misleading, just simply that money is spent here.
This is simply the easiest way to reach Americans

Second the 95% statistic from ABC:
These ads are misleading, not untrue. This would be the fault of the Americans

In regards to the Gingrich issue:

Take note of where it said that super PACs are not official and don't need to conform to rules. I believe the point you are trying to make is with official advertisements. These are simply not official

In regards to the spend more to win argument, we should take a look at the recent presidential election.

On to the second point:
This entire point is invalid simply because corruption is an opinion, and this can be seen with the US's opinion of Kim Jong Un in North Korea. It is almost split 50/50 whether Americans believe he is corrupt or not
Debate Round No. 1


Considering my opponent failed to make one of his own arguments and only attempted to refute my own I should win the debate. No further arguments are needed. Again my opponent failed to make any of his own points so therefore he has nothing to refute the only thing possible would be to build my own case but since he has none the debate is meaningless and I should win.


Kwhite7298 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Again my opponent failed to make his own argument or case so I strongly urge a vote in aff


Kwhite7298 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by youmils03 3 years ago
Trying to get a leg up on Public Forum debate, eh?
No votes have been placed for this debate.