The Instigator
1Historygenius
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
JonWebStar
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Democratic Party receives more funding than the Republican Party

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,466 times Debate No: 23952
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (2)

 

1Historygenius

Pro

The Democratic Party of the United States receives more funding than its Republican Party opponent in terms of money. Round 1 is just for introduction.

Time period: 1989 to 2012.

No semantics!
JonWebStar

Con

Going back to the time of Reagan and his trickle-down economics, called "voodoo economics" by his primary opponent, George Herbert Walker Bush in '80, the Republican Party has always been the party of the well-to-do. With Citizens United, basically in Romney's paraphrased words "making corporations people", the creation of Super PACs such as American Crossroads and American Crossroads GPS, both started by Karl Rove, and the infusion of moneys by the Koch Brothers into Republican races, the GOP has become drastically more funded than the Democratic Party. This recurring theme is the result of the Bush tax cuts for millionaires, solidifying the votes and donations of the wealthiest 1%. Obama proposed raising taxes on those who make over $250,000 dollars, thus alienating any chance of moneys coming to the Democratic Party from wealthy donors, save Warren Buffett, a true American, and other scant examples like him. The Koch brothers and others like them have dumped massive amounts of money into the lap of Scott Walker to fight for him in his recall election. Republicans are far out-fundraising and outspending in that state recall election alone.
Debate Round No. 1
1Historygenius

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Now let's start!

"With Citizens United, basically in Romney's paraphrased words "making corporations people", the creation of Super PACs such as American Crossroads and American Crossroads GPS, both started by Karl Rove, and the infusion of moneys by the Koch Brothers into Republican races, the GOP has become drastically more funded than the Democratic Party."

Let's take this statement apart. We will start with Citizens United. Citizens United PAC actually started recently (it was around before that, but not as a PAC). From 1994 to 2012, it received a total of $1,640,010 and spent a total of $1,071,305 (http://www.opensecrets.org...). American Crossroads PAC has only been around for 2010 midterms and the 2012 election. They have made $29,927,515 during that time and have spent $5,165,886 of it (http://www.opensecrets.org...). American Crossroads GPS is a Super PAC and has spent $1,199,752 (http://www.opensecrets.org...). The Koch Brothers have spent a total of $12,733,249 from 1989 to 2012 (http://www.opensecrets.org...). In total, the four groups that my opponent has presented have spent a total of $20,170,192 to the GOP. Remember that number.

Now I will present my own four organizations that are in with the Democrats. My first is ActBlue, launched in 2004, and it is currently a federally registered PAC. From 1989 to 2012 it has spent a total of $62,816,969 on the Democrats (http://www.opensecrets.org...). Next is the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees and is made up of 3,500 local unions representing 1.4 million workers. They have spent a total of $47,977,038 on the Democrats (http://www.opensecrets.org...) from 1989 to 2012. Next is the National Education Association, the oldest and largest teachers union. The NEA has spent $41,412,233 on the Democrats (http://www.opensecrets.org...). Finally, we have the Service Employees International Union which represents 1.5 million workers. It has spent a total of $38,237,146 from 1989 to 2012 (http://www.opensecrets.org...). Now let's add that up. That is precisely a total of $190,443,386 that they have spent on the Democrats.

$20,170,192 for the Republicans vs. $190,443,386 for the Democrats, I wonder which one is larger? This clearly proves that the Democrats are funded far more than the Republicans.

I have proved that the Democrats are funded far more drastically than the Republicans.
JonWebStar

Con

JonWebStar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
1Historygenius

Pro

Arguments extended.
JonWebStar

Con

JonWebStar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1Historygenius

Pro

Argument extended.
JonWebStar

Con

JonWebStar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
No you don't :P
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
outspending and raising in one state does not equate a full overall. Also con made me laugh. One election =/= overall. Easy win for pro. I know what he is going to do anyway
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Pacs and superpacs have only been in existence since just before the last election. I think they should be counted. Also, labor unions make massive "in kind" donations of manpower to Democrats. No matter how it's counted, Democrats have been outspending Republicans for years and years.

Wall Street gave more money to Obama than McCain in the last election. Obama has since trashed them thoroughly, but don't be surprised if he gets massive donations from Wall Street again. When regulation determines whether or not you survive, making friends with the power elite is all important.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
"Wait, aren't PACs and super PACs the same thing? If they are I will take it down."
Sorry, I forgot to check back to this debate and respond to it. Super PACs are slightly different because even though they can raise unlimited sums of money from anonymous sources, they can't actually donate directly to the candidate. It's weird, but it is technically funding.

"Ron Paul didn't get enough funding"
Actually, while Romney raised about 56,968,492 in super PAC money, Paul got 5,346,652, so although he wasn't technically underfunded, he wasn't even in Romney's ball park (http://www.opensecrets.org...).
Posted by RONPAULISJESUS 4 years ago
RONPAULISJESUS
Ron Paul didn't get enough funding.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
pro used that time set perfectly
http://www.opensecrets.org...
Posted by JTisTrue 4 years ago
JTisTrue
I was wondering(In my amateur naivety) how this could be a serious debate since all one would need for an argument is a credible source citing figures. Thanks for answering my question before I made a serious debate.com faux pas. Obviously, this is what you guys are calling a source debate. My noobness (fear of rejection?) is slowly disappearing! My first debate will be soon I hope.
Posted by ScarletGhost4396 4 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
This isn't so much a debate as much as it is a museum for political party statistics.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
People are just going to pull up numbers and source them.......
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
Forget it, we will do Super PACs
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
1HistorygeniusJonWebStarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
1HistorygeniusJonWebStarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Epic Fail CON