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

Unlimited campaign funding from super PACS

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 987 times Debate No: 31787
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I have done not-serious debates in the past, but i would lile this to be serious.
Round 1: agreement

Round 2: opening statements

Round3: rebbutals

Round 4: rebbutals/ summing up

No sources necessary and both parties carry burden of proof


Ok so PAC does stand for basically for presidential election right
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting this debate topic.
In the news recently, Washington D.C. has been stirring over one particular issue. This issue is unlimited funding of super PACS (Political Action committees) towards political campaigns. Many politicians believe that this allows businesses to directly influence elections. Others say that it gives more power to the upper-class who can typically afford to donate more toward their favored candidate. Their are some major flaws in these arguments.

1) Some citizens believe that allowing unlimited funding gives businesses an unfair advantage of directly influencing elections. This could not be further from the truth. Unless the money goes to tampering with the ballots, every American citizen has the right to vote regardless of how much a business donates to super PACS for a certain candidate. In the last two elections, the candidate from the two major parties with the least amount of super PAC funding won the election. Money can not directly buy a citizen's vote. The people, businesses, and labor unions of America all have the right to donate as much as they want to influence a political election.

2) The upper-class do not gain power with unlimited super PAC spending. About 1% of Americans are in the upper-class. The beauty of democracy, is that no matter how much money one person has, 99% of the country gets just as much say as them. That 1% could donate as much as they want to their candidate of choice. However, without the say of at least 50% of the rest of the population, the candidate receiving the money will lose. Also, labor unions donate to super-Pacs as well. In fact, labor unions donate more money to political elections than any other organization. Even if donating to super PACs gave a specific group more of a voice in government, the upper-class would not have the biggest voice. The 17.7 million blue-collar workers that make up labor unions would have the largest voice.


One thing America is a republic. second you also have to think how does the 1% of the American people become so rich they know what people want not what they need. Also not saying always bribery,fraud,advertising etc. have played in to the equation so if you do the math about 50% of the population get influenced through the money,power and greed. Plus workers unions how do union workers get played by who the rich and government and there owners (bosses) who get funded by usually the people who get money from the go. and personally the upper class will get more power full because one they can choose people who wish to only wish to make the rich richer. Plus if you think about it most people will get poorer the rich will be normal the normal will be poor and the poor will just disappear from the face of the Earth. Why is because they need money from the go. who get it through taxes the more taxes the angrier the people.
Debate Round No. 2


My argument is very very simple to understand. Donating to super PACs does not give the upper-class power, because it matters more so how you use the money you have, rather than how much money you have. The proof is in history. Over the last two elections, the candidate with the lesser support from super PACs won the election. This candidate, of course, being Barack Obama. Republicans raised four times the amount that the democratic party raised for the Obama campaign. Despite the huge disadvantage of campaign funding, Obama still won. How did he do it? Although I do not agree with him, he ran quality advertisements on television questioning Romney's record, campaigned in the right cities, and communicated his ideas more clearly than the Romney campaign had.

My opponent states in his last argument, "if you do the math about 50% of the population get influenced through money, power, and greed." Does this mean that half of the people of America are corrupted, greedy, robber barons who care nothing for the rest of the country?

My opponent also states that, "the upper class will get more power full because one they can choose people who wish to only make the rich richer." This is totally true. The upper class does have the power to vote for someone they feel will help them succeed more. However, the other 99% of the population still exists and has the right to vote. Take this scenario for an example, the top 1% of the population have created a super PAC and have allocated one trillion dollars to the campaign of candidate A, because he promised to abolish taxes for the top 1% and raise taxes on the rest of the country by 20%(I know this is ridiculous but it is strictly hypothetical). On the other hand, candidate B has about 300 million dollars in donations from super PACs created by the other 99%. Although candidate A has a trillion dollars in his campaign budget, the other 99% of the population supports candidate B because they favor his flat tax plan as opposed to candidate A's silly tax plan. As a result of the election, candidate B will win because of his political platform and the people's support. The upper class can raise as much money as they desire, but without the support of the other 99% of the country, a candidate has no chance of winning an election.


you just contradicted your self you clam that the richer (more funded) candid will lose follow what you say each candid will be heavy funded there for leading to who the people want most through what advertisements,promises,and lower taxes. If this were to happen most people wouldn't vote for the right guy because of one mans influence. My argument means I believe let the campaigns be the same way they are. this helps the U.S. not focus on how much money they have (may not have seemed that way)
Debate Round No. 3


In conclusion, my opponent has failed to use the phrase "super PAC," let alone make one point as to why campaign donations from super PACs should be limited. The amount of money donated to to a candidate does not effect the outcome of the election. The proof of this is in history. The last two elections were won by the candidate who had less funding from super PACs. For these reasons super PACs should be allowed to donate to a campaign without limits set by the government.


In my conclusion to give to people unlimited funds you are basically taking away people the right to vote for who they think will win and do a good job most people will be influenced to vote for who wants to fool people.

the pro claims that this will help it will not.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by nathanknickerbocker.9 4 years ago
If you get confused comment and ill explain
Posted by MattHarrison 4 years ago
You don't need to write 8,000 characters, as many as you feel you need can be used. I certainly am not using that many.
Posted by MattHarrison 4 years ago
Good question and I'm glad we are clarifying this now.
PAC stands for political action committee. They are organized by supporters of a specific candidate and collect money to donate to the campaign of the supported candidate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 4 years ago
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: Oh goodness, half the debate Con misunderstood what Pro was even talking about. In addition Con didn't even contend to any of Pro's points.