Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Clements YT January Con B

Clements YT January Con B

Ratings: (0)|Views: 7|Likes:
Published by Arjun Talpallikar
Con case with Joshua for Mayde Creek
Con case with Joshua for Mayde Creek

More info:

Categories:Types, Speeches
Published by: Arjun Talpallikar on Feb 11, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/11/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Yang Talpallikar NegativeClements High SchoolThe Mayde Creek Tournament1
Yang Talpallikar Negative
 
Arjun and I Negate Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Courtdecision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms theelection process.
6 seconds
Framework
We observe the following:
1. According to the Supreme Court, the only circumstance in which wecan outweigh the right to political free speech is to SIGNIFICANTLYquantitatively reduce corruption in a
Quid-pro-Quo form 
.
a. Thus, before we examine lower levels of the debate, the pro side MUSTprove quantitative corruption reduction.
2. Because the foundation of our election system is our Constitutionalrights, if the decision preserves Constitutional Rights, you MUSTnegate before evaluating affirmative Arguments.
25 seconds
CI: First Amendment Rights
Our Election Process can only exist because of America’s underlying
democratic foundation.
The CITIZENS UNITED Decision was made because:
 
1. The First Amendment protects
associations 
of individuals in addition to
 
individual speakers, and
 
Yang Talpallikar NegativeClements High SchoolThe Mayde Creek Tournament2
2. that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on
 
the identity of the speaker.
 
17 secondsTHUS:
Corporations, as
associations of individuals
, therefore
have speech rights under the
 
First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating
 
speech
,
as established in 
, 
limiting a corporation's ability to spend
 
money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to
 
associate effectively and to speak on political issues.
15 seconds
As Kennedy writes, “
 
If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress
 
from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in
 
political speech”
 
 
Kennedy goes to explain:
 
Because the First Amendment (and the Court) do not distinguish between media
 
and other corporations,
these
 
[the] restrictions ended by
Citizens United 
would
 
allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television,
 
and blogs.
CII: SuperPACs increase turnout
Ads Increase Turnout
American Politics Research 
 
2010
; 38; 502 originally published online Oct 3,John Sides, Keena Lipsitz and Matthew Grossmann
Campaigns?Do
Voters Perceive Negative Campaigns as Informative
 
As we learn more about the multiple and often conflictingreactions that citizens have to campaigns, we
may
discover specificmessages
that
both inform and engage citizens. [Without discouraging turnout]
 
Yang Talpallikar NegativeClements High SchoolThe Mayde Creek Tournament3
Richard R. Lau
Rutgers University
 Lee Sigelman
The George Washington University
 Ivy Brown Rovner Rutgers University
And
 
Cambridge UniversityConducted 2 Meta-Analyses of 111 separate studies and found that:Nor is there any reliable evidence that negative campaigning depresses voter turnout,RATHER: BY INFORMING CITIZENS, SUPER PAC ADS ENCOURAGE TURNOUT.Union Activism increases turnout
 
LAS VEGAS SUN:
Unions expand voter turnout effort thanks to Citizens United
By Karoun Demirjian (contact)  Thursday, Nov. 1, 2012 | 2 a.m.
UNIONS ARE ABLE TO CREATE LARGER TURNOUT
The call to issue those reminders
[CITIZENS UNITED]
has ballooned the size of the local unions’ground game. SEIU officials say they are targeting “tens of thousands” of doors beyond
their 18,000-strong membership and have logged over 100,000 door knocks.
CIII: Shareholder Activism weakens Corporate Control
Yet the real pressure points, or at least the most consistent ones, are likelier tobe felt among
 
shareholders who may be upset over negative consumer opiniontriggered by a donation, or who are themselves directly opposed to a particulardonation.
 
[engage in]
 
Shareholder activism
, about which we’ve written so frequently
inthese pages,
[which] is thus a salient countervailing force against the oligarchictrendspurportedly unleashed by
Citizens United 
.
 And corporations know it, as themounting number of voluntary disclosures clearly suggests.
Consider the Center for Political Accountability
 
itself as a barometer of theactivist sea change.
 
According to its
 
own
 
reports, shareholders working withCPA have filed a total of 51 resolutions in 2012
.
Of those, 13 led to agreementswith the company.
 
For example, theNew York State Pension Funds
“successfully engaged”
Safeway, Kroger, CSX Corp.,Sempra Energy,R.R. Donnelley & Sons, and Reynolds American.Trillium Asset Management
“reached agreements” with
Halliburton, Chubb Corp, andState Street Corp. The list goes on, encompassing both individual shareholders and other

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->