The Instigator
anonynomous
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
The_Master_Riddler
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points

on balance does the supremes court decision in citezens united harm the election process

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 1 vote the winner is...
The_Master_Riddler
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,814 times Debate No: 28685
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

anonynomous

Con

As the resolution asks if citezens united causes harm my only burden as con is to show how citezens united has no net harm.
I argue that the three goals of the election process are to maxamize voter turnout, create informed voters and increase transperency.

structure
round 1- state position list arguements and defenitions
round 2- post case with contetntions listed in round one
round 3- rebutall
round 4- summary speech(what are the most important issues and why are you winning on them)
round 5-conclusion

this is my first online debate so thnx to anyone who accepts this
The_Master_Riddler

Pro

I believe that the Citizen's United versus Federal Election Commission ruling harms the election process. Furthermore, I believe that the Citizen's United ruling undermines democracy in the United States. Here are my contentions:
Contention One: It can allow corporations to instill fear into American voters, and
Contention Two: It will allow corporations to give large amounts of politicians. In return, these corporations expect the politicians they give money to to pass laws and acts that don't bebefit the populace.

I can't wait to read my opponent's case.
Debate Round No. 1
anonynomous

Con

ok so i would like to start by by thanking master riddle for accepting this topic and would like to encourage everyone to comment on what i could improve on. With that said here is my case:

Contention 1: The Citizens united ruling increase voter turnout.
According to "the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 2012 presidential race over $380,000,000 have been raised by super PACs and $330,000,000 have been spent".This money according to the wall street journal is so super PACs can run advertisements for or against political candidates.. This is important because these advertisements are essential for maintaining voter turnout according to Paul freedman of the University of Virginia "respondents were as much as 10 percentages Points more likely to vote if they watched television in media Markets that were bombarded with presidential ads". Furthermore according to Dr. Hillygus of Duke University "Among those who early in the campaign did not intend to vote, exposure to ads increased intentions to vote by 18 percentage points". The impact of this is that by increasing voter turnout we get a more accurate representation of the publics will which is the purpose of the election process.
Contention 2: citizens united allows voters to make informed decisions
According to political scientist David Downing "without freedom of media and wider freedom of speech people cannot make informed decisions on how they should vote". This is important because according to Hans von Spakovsky, former member of the Federal Election Commission "many associations we have in this country (no matter which side of the political aisle they are on), from the NAACP to the Sierra Club to the National Rifle Association, are also corporations. Yet those corporate associations were prohibited under penalty of criminal and civil sanctions from expressing the views of their members. This means that before this landmark decisions many important organizations where barred from expressing their opinions and thus the public lacked vital information that may have significantly affected the outcome of previous elections. Lastly this increase in corporate spending does not favor either political party since according to matt bia a correspondent for the new York times campaign spending tends to be cyclical since when one party increases its spending the other party tends to mobilize and increase its spending. Thus not only does citizens united create more informed voters but it also prevents any one party from gaining an advantage.
Contention 3: Citizens united increases transparency
Transparency is one of the most important aspects of the election process according to political watchdog the electoral knowledge "Transparency makes institutional systems and the actions/decisions they take widely accessible and understood [and] It is difficult to maintain or publicly justify a system that permits abuse and corruption". This is important because before this landmark decisions political donors would use social-welfare groups or 527"s to make political contributions. These social welfare groups according to New York correspondent mat bia are unlike super PAC"s generally not required to disclose their donors. This means that by allowing the creation of super PAC"s the Supreme Court has given the public better access to political finance and thus increased the transparency of the electoral process.

Sources:
http://blog.heritage.org...
http://www.slate.com...

https://docs.google.com...
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.bowdoin.edu...
http://jurist.org...
http://aceproject.org...
The_Master_Riddler

Pro

The media has been a major
influence on how people think, instilling fear and hatred into people’s minds.
That is why I affirm the resolution that Citizen’s United v. Federal Election
Commission harms the election process. I believe that this ruling harms the
election process because it gives corporations the power to influence people
through the media. It also gives the power for corporations to donate money to
politicians to get certain laws passed. In this debate, I would like for you to
uphold the value of democracy, which
seems to be the appropriate value according to this debate.

Contention One: This ruling allows corporations to influence voters by
the media.

The media influences people to
believe things that are either exaggerated or not true. For example, from American Politics written by Peter J.
Woolley and Albert R. Papa, there are alarming statistics about how much the
media has influenced what people believe. One statistic provided is “On a
national poll why they believe the
country has a serious crime problem, 76% of people cited stories they had seen
in the media.” But in fact we don’t
even really have a serious crime problem. “But between the 1990 and 1998, when the nation’s murder rate declined by
20%, the number of murder stories on network newscasts increased 600% (not
including the OJ Simpson stories) !”
As you can see, even when crime was
going down, the exposure of crime stories went up, and because of that people
thought that there was a serious crime problem, based on what they saw. Now the
reason why this is important is that Citizen’s United v. Federal Election
Commission ruling allows corporations to create advertisements that degrade a
candidate, and because it comes on TV, they will most likely believe it. If the
Republicans went on TV, playing an advertisement once every 30 minutes saying
that President Barack Obama is a bad person (which is 96 times a day!), they
will most likely believe it. That is why it undermines democracy, because it
can aid corporations in misleading people to believe things that aren’t true.

Contention Two: This ruling allows corporations to donate money to
politicians.

Now, the second reason why it
undermines democracy is that it allows corporations to donate money to politicians
to pass laws that are either unjust or unwanted by the populace. For example,
the Koch Brothers donated $76,000 to Rick Perry to deny social welfare and the
hazards of pollution. And as of now, Texas, the state he governs, is the top
polluting state, polluting over 1.2 million pounds of toxic gas into our air.
Rick Perry also denied a $2 billion check from President Barack Obama for
healthcare. That money could have in fact helped over 2 million people get
affordable healthcare. That money could have cut the amount of uninsured people
in half. That money could have lowered Texas’s uninsured percentage from 23.7%
to 5.8%. Where is the justice, when the average American citizen, when the
average Texan, is asking for healthcare, but he or she can’t get that money to
pay for his medical bills when the governor says no only because of two
brothers? There is none! That is why it undermines democracy, because it
removes the American voice.

Conclusion

I close with this. One day I was
watching my favorite movie: The Great Debaters. I remember in one of his
debates, Henry Lowe, one of the debaters, said a quote from a Roman General:
“Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant. “This means they create desolation and
call it peace. That is what is happening right now. With this ruling, the
government is allowing corporations to muzzle the voices of everyday Americans
so they can exercise democracy. But this is not democracy. This is fascism.
Former President Franklin D. Roosevelt said that “The liberty of a democracy is
not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point it
becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That in its essence is
fascism.” Even President Barack Obama says that this ruling helps “Wall Street
banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshall
their power to drown out the voice of everyday Americans.”

Debate Round No. 2
anonynomous

Con

In this round i will be going line by line down my opponents contetions and refuting his points

Contention One: This ruling allows corporations to influence voters by
the media.
he starts off by claiming that the media propegates false information and cites the fact that crime has gone down and yet people still think crime is a major issue.
The problem with this arguement is that it doesn't actually show a misinformed public in fact there where 12966 murders in the US in 2010 thats about 30 times per capita the murder rate in britan. Clearly crime is a major issue in the US.
This means that the media was actually informing citezens on a pressing issue in the US today so this arguement actualy flows towards the con.

my oppenent go's on to say that corporation are now capable of showing negative ads that may be false

The problem with this is again my opponent does not show that these ads are actually misleading and if you look at my second contetion what you actually see is that citezens united creates more informed citezens and thus this also flows to the con

Lastly in his first contetion my opponent states that citezens will automaticly belive anything on TV

This arguement is purly speculational and if you look at it from a logical perspective you see it is patently ridiculous. It seems highly unlikly to me that the average voter is so gullible as to belive anything he or she see's but even if you want to assume this you would have a constatantly changing voter who would switch his decision every time he see's a new ad and thus it would not effect any canidate unequaly.

now i would like to address my opponents second contetion.

This ruling allows corporations to donate money to
politicians.

Ok this is simple false the rulling does not allow corporations or unions to donate money directly to a canadite but requires them to establish third party political action commitee's that are required to operate independently of any party so just on that his contetion falls.

Anyways just to be thorough all my opponent claims
1) the koch brothers gave texas money to increase pollution: again he offers no warrant or evedince to support this claim and doesn't adress the fact that texas may have a high level of pollution because it has lots of people

2) rick perry turned down a healthcare check: this has absoloutly no relevance to this debate so i ask that you drop this arguement

thankyou and i look forward to further arguements
The_Master_Riddler

Pro

First, my opponent says that this ruling will help increase voter turnout. But keep in mind that the court case was ruled in 2010. In the last presidential election, in 2008, about 130 million people voted. But in this presidential election, there were only about 117 million voters. That argument should be dropped and is false.

My opponent says that this ruling helps inform voters, but that is not true. In fact, some of these ads that my opponent talks about do not inform voters, but simply slander the opposing candidate.

My opponent says that this court ruling prevents both corporations from getting the upper hand, but that is not true at all. It allows the person with the most money and the most money to spend to have the greater advantage. That was proven in this presidential election. President Barack Obama not only had 100 more million dollars than Mitt Romney, but he also spent more money than Mitt Romney. And as you can see, President Barack Obama won.

My opponent has failed to prove that this ruling increases transparency. He has failed to provide a definition of what transparency means in that argument. Also, he is false in his information. Because of this court case, corporations are now viewed as people. And because of that, they have the right to keep all information to themselves.

My opponent refutes my first contention with the argument of USA's murder rate in comparison to UK, but the problem with that is that UK has far less people than the USA for people to murder. Also, proof that the media is misleading people. Barry Glassner says that because of the media "In the first half of the 1990's US cities spent at least $10 billion to purge asbestos from public schools, even though removing asbestos from buildings posed a greater health hazard than leaving it in place." As you can see, because of the media, people were made to believe something that would harm their kids to actually help their kids.

My opponent said that I said that citizens will automatically believe anything on TV, but I never said that at all. I said that if given enough exposure, people can be made to believe things on TV. My opponent is altering the words I say to prove his point, but if I were to tell him to pull one quote from my case in which I say those exact words, then he would not be able to because I didn't say that.

My opponent says that this court ruling doesn't allow corporations to donate to politicians, but fails to realize that because of this ruling, superPacs and corporations were able to donate about $50 million to President Barack Obama.

He also contradicts himself in trying to refute my argument. He says and I quote "does not allow corporations or unions to donate money directly to a canadite but requires them to establish third party political action commitee's that are required to operate independently of any party" What this is simply saying is that corporations can't donate money, but the corporations can get a group of people from the corporation to donate the money to the politician. This is proving my point in saying that a person, or a group of people, can donate the corporation's money to the politician. So in fact, his refutation falls.

He also says that I said the Koch Brother's donated money to Texas, but that is not true. I said that the Koch Brother's donated money to Rick Perry. As you can see, my opponent is twisting my words to prove his purpose.

Proof that the Koch Brother's are doing what they are doing:
http://www.dailykos.com...#

Sources
http://www.amnation.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
anonynomous

Con

i would like to thank master ridler again and will be posting each of his points and then refuting them.

in 2008, about 130 million people voted. But in this presidential election, there were only about 117 million voters. That argument should be dropped and is false.

while this may seem like a valid refutaion of my first contetion but on closer inspection we see this fails.
my first contetion can essentialy be simpilified to this.

1) super pacs increase advertisments
2) advetisments increase voter turnout
3) thus by the transitive property super pacs increase voter turnout

now my oppenets arguements is completly correlational and doesn't actually refute any of my arguements thus we must assume that they stand. With that in mind what we see is that is completly feasabile that super pacs increase voter turnout yet are offset by other factors such as voter intimidation or lack of political intrest. Thus my first contetion still stands.

My opponent says that this ruling helps inform voters, but that is not true. In fact, some of these ads that my opponent talks about do not inform voters, but simply slander the opposing candidate.

Here my opponent purly speculates and provides absoloutly no warrant to justify his puly speculational claim while in my second contetion i demonstrate how a free media creates a more informed voter thus my second contetion stands.

My opponent says that this court ruling prevents both corporations from getting the upper hand, but that is not true at all. It allows the person with the most money and the most money to spend to have the greater advantage. That was proven in this presidential election. President Barack Obama not only had 100 more million dollars than Mitt Romney, but he also spent more money than Mitt Romney. And as you can see, President Barack Obama won.

I have two responses to this:

1) I would like to direct your attention back to my case where i show that election spending tends to by cyclical "matt bia a correspondent for the new York times campaign spending tends to be cyclical since when one party increases its spending the other party tends to mobilize and increase its spending" thus we see that we are not actually giving anyone a unfair advantage

2) even if we were to assume that spending is why canditates win elections and not because of popular will what we see is that citezens united actually advances this cuase. if we look to the 2008 election what we see is that oboma spent "$847 million in funds for the general election. while Mr. McCain and the RNC spent $550 million in the general election"[1] this means that citezens united is actually leveling the playing field by allowing outside to contribute to the election. Thus by my opponents logic you will be voting con.

My opponent has failed to prove that this ruling increases transparency

my oppenents gives no justification for this claim so i dont's see the need to respond

. He has failed to provide a definition of what transparency means in that argument.

I thought what i meant was pretty obvious but here's a defenition if you want "free from pretense or deceit"[2]

Because of this court case, corporations are now viewed as people. And because of that, they have the right to keep all information to themselves.

again my opponent provides no evedince or justification for this claim and if tou cross apply my third contetion you see this statment is patently false.

My opponent refutes my first contention with the argument of USA's murder rate in comparison to UK, but the problem with that is that UK has far less people than the USA for people to murder.

if you look at my evedince you see it's based on a PER CAPITA evaluation and not raw numbers thus it does paint and accurate picture.

My opponent said that I said that citizens will automatically believe anything on TV, but I never said that at all. I said that if given enough exposure, people can be made to believe things on TV. My opponent is altering the words I say to prove his point, but if I were to tell him to pull one quote from my case in which I say those exact words, then he would not be able to because I didn't say that.

my oppenent claims i straw man him and asks my to give his exact quote so here are his words "because it comes on TV, they will most likely believe it" im sorry if you belive i minsterpreted your words but regardless essentialy what my opponent is saying is that televisions ads are the predominante voting factor and thus i feel my prevous refutaion still stands.

My opponent says that this court ruling doesn't allow corporations to donate to politicians, but fails to realize that because of this ruling, superPacs and corporations were able to donate about $50 million to President Barack Obama.

i feel as if my opponent misunderstands the ruling. again citezens united DOES NOT ALLOW coporation or unions to give direct donation but requires them to establish third party PAC's to run advertisments.

He also contradicts himself in trying to refute my argument. He says and I quote "does not allow corporations or unions to donate money directly to a canadite but requires them to establish third party political action commitee's that are required to operate independently of any party" What this is simply saying is that corporations can't donate money, but the corporations can get a group of people from the corporation to donate the money to the politician. This is proving my point in saying that a person, or a group of people, can donate the corporation's money to the politician. So in fact, his refutation falls

here my opponent straw mans me and completly misinteprets my statements. what i was essentialy saying is that corporation can't donate money to politicians thats it.

http://online.wsj.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

again i would like to thank master riddler and look forward to further debate
The_Master_Riddler

Pro

Well, this debate has gotten very interesting. My opponent has seem to have broken his own rules. He said that the fourth round was to show why we are winning certain arguments and a summary speech. But instead, he decides to refute my arguments. And even though you usually use the last rounds to refute your opponent, my opponent created rules where you do otherwise. So, I will show why I am winning each argument as the rules shows.

His first contention says that exposure to ads will possibly increase voter turnout. I prove that in 2008, the last presidential election, there were 130 million voters. But in 2012, after the passing of the ruling of Citizen's United and the most recent presidential election, that there were only 117 million voters. This proves that this ruling does not improve voter turnout. I believe that my opponent is trying to accuse me of the Fallacy of Miscausation, but we must realize that my opponent has committed three fallacies in one argument: Over Reliance of Authority (based on what people say and not true, hard evidence), Priori Fallacy (looking at moral instead of evidence), and Begging the Question (making unsupported claims). Proof that he has committed these fallacies:
Over Reliance of Authority: Instead of using statistical evidence to prove that this is increasing voter turnout, he uses a quote from a man that thinks it may increase voter turnout. Dr. Hillguys himself says " exposure to ads increased intentions to vote by 18 percentage points", but it never proved that they did vote. Intentions means the thought to do something, but that doesn't mean they actually voted.
Priori Fallacy: he is denying the evidence that proves that voter turnout is not increasing, but yet decreasing voter turnout. Also, voter suppression was to target African American and Hispanic voters. There are over 200 million white people in the United States. So, lets say 75% of them are able to vote. There will still be about 150 million white people that can vote, give or take a few. They could have in fact voted. Why did they not?
Begging the Question: The evidence that he provided trying to prove that it increases voter turnout didn't even prove voter turnout. It said they were likely to vote. That means there is still some uncertainty that they will probably not vote.

I am actually winning this argument because he has not proven with statistical evidence that it is increasing voter turnout, because it isn't.



His second contention says that because of Citizen's United, voter's are more informed, but I proved that because corporations are treated as people, they are given the right to not tell you information. On wikipedia, they say "The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and that people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[5] In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction that allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and that protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association."

Because. they are treated as people, and people have the right to not reveal any information, then corporations have the right to withhold information. That doesn't help inform people.
I am winning this argument because corporations don't have to reveal information because of corporate personhood, which is a direct contradiction to his argument there.

His third contention says that it will increase transparency by allowing corporations to disclose financial information,but this is simply not true. Because of my refutation to his second contention, they are treated as people. Therefore, they don't have to disclose anything because they have the fourth amendment on their side, which prevents searchs without a warrannt. In fact, Kim Barker, reporter of reportergary.com, says, "Instead, this is the disclosure world that exists. Someone who gives up to $2,500 to the campaign of President Barack Obama or challenger Mitt Romney will have his or her name, address and profession listed on the FEC website for all to see. But that same person can give $1 million dollars or more to a social welfare group that can buy ads supporting or attacking those same candidates and stay anonymous.

I am winning this argument because corporations aren't disclosing their information. In fact, Forbes magazine tried to find out how much money does the Koch Brothers give to politicians, and they told them no! In the recent magazine, all they have is a big ? because they can't force them to tell the information.

Now to counter refutations.

My opponent has failed to prove that this ruling increases transparency

my oppenents gives no justification for this claim so i dont's see the need to respond

This is a very weak counter refutation. I have now provided evidence that proves that people will not be able to find out how much a corporation gives to politicians.

Because of this court case, corporations are now viewed as people. And because of that, they have the right to keep all information to themselves.

again my opponent provides no evedince or justification for this claim and if tou cross apply my third contetion you see this statment is patently false.

Question: So just because your contention says it does create more transparency, even if it doesn't, we are supposed to accept it to be true.


He also contradicts himself in trying to refute my argument. He says and I quote "does not allow corporations or unions to donate money directly to a canadite but requires them to establish third party political action commitee's that are required to operate independently of any party" What this is simply saying is that corporations can't donate money, but the corporations can get a group of people from the corporation to donate the money to the politician. This is proving my point in saying that a person, or a group of people, can donate the corporation's money to the politician. So in fact, his refutation falls

here my opponent straw mans me and completly misinteprets my statements. what i was essentialy saying is that corporation can't donate money to politicians thats it

As you can see, my opponent decided to not clarify what he meant. As I said, he contradicts himself because as I said earlier, corporations can get people, that could be from the corporation, to donate to politicians. The superPacs, in his statement, are the middle man. At the end of the day, corporations can still donate money to politicians and that is where he contradicts himself.

my oppenent claims i straw man him and asks my to give his exact quote so here are his words "because it comes on TV, they will most likely believe it" im sorry if you belive i minsterpreted your words but regardless essentialy what my opponent is saying is that televisions ads are the predominante voting factor and thus i feel my prevous refutaion still stands.

My opponent fails to realize that I didn't say they will believe what came on TV, but they will most likely, which means there might be a chance they wont believe it.

My opponent says that this ruling helps inform voters, but that is not true. In fact, some of these ads that my opponent talks about do not inform voters, but simply slander the opposing candidate.

Here my opponent purly speculates and provides absoloutly no warrant to justify his puly speculational claim while in my second contetion i demonstrate how a free media creates a more informed voter thus my second contetion stands.

Here is a link of a slanderous campaign ad.
I ran out of characters. Sources in comments.



Debate Round No. 4
anonynomous

Con

My opponent is right I unfourtantly an participating in multiple debates with diffrent rules and thus got mixed up I therefore ask that all 7 points go to my opponent I would like to thank him again for this interesting debate
The_Master_Riddler

Pro

The_Master_Riddler forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by PatulousDescry 2 years ago
PatulousDescry
Wow, both of you guys know nothing about the case. I doubt either of you ever read the Opinion and Dissent or even know about the law was in question and was overturned.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
BTW, if you need votes on forfeited debates like this, you can get some eyes on it here:

http://debate.org...
Posted by anonynomous 4 years ago
anonynomous
http://www.juancole.com...
the murder rate evedince just in case you want it
Posted by TheTraditionalist 4 years ago
TheTraditionalist
Correct the title of this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
anonynomousThe_Master_RiddlerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: TL;DR - con forfeited, spelling in title is off.