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 AT January Con D

Clements AT January Con D

Ratings: (0)|Views: 7 |Likes:
Published by Arjun Talpallikar
Updated Con case for Houston Lamar with Mohammad
Updated Con case for Houston Lamar with Mohammad

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

04/10/2014

pdf

text

original

 
M Asif A TalpallikarHouston Lamar1
We negate
on balance - taking everything into consideration
(Free Dictionary)
citizens united v. federal election commission - (january 21, 2010) a landmarkUnited StatesSupreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment prohibitedthegovernment from restricting independent political expenditures by corporationsand unions.
(Wiki)
harms - have an adverse effect on
(Merriam Webster)
election process - all actions leading up to the election of a position and the results of theelection
(Merriam Webster)
Contention I: Contributions are nonunique
Subpoint A: Historical trends
How Much Has Citizens United Changed the Political Game? July 17, 2012 New York Times.
 
 
Matt Bai (NYT) 2012
 
The level of outside money increased 164 percent from 2004 to 2008 [and]
Then it rose
 
135 percent from 2008 to 2012.
 
In other words
, while the sheer amount of dollars seems
 
considerably more ominous after Citizens United,
the percentage of change
from one presidential
 
election to the next
has remained pretty consistent.
since the passage of McCain-Feingold. And
 
 
this suggests that
[
T]he rising amount of outside money was probably bound to reach
 
ever more staggering levels with or without Citizens United.
Subpoint B: Soft Money
 According to
Bradley Smith:
 
Bradley Smith is
 
the chairman of Center for Competitive Politics and he former chairman of the Federal Election Commission
[Those against the Decision] have not even mentioned how much corporationscontributed in party soft money prior to the 2004 cycle, or how much nonprofitsspent in non-express advocacy, which they could do at any time
 
prior to the 2004 cycle,
 
morethan 60 days out from the general or 30 days out from the primary in the 2004campaign,
 
and
 
for most intents and purposes
at any time in the 2008 campaig
n
 
(after Wisconsin Rightto Life II). For example,
in 2004, forgetting about 501(c)(4) and (c)(6)nonprofits, “527s”
 
M Asif A TalpallikarHouston Lamar2
alone spent approximately $600 million. In 2000, the parties alone raisedapproximately $400 mil
lion in “soft money,” with of course much more being
spent by 527s and other nonprofits
.
Subpoint C: Non-Profits
 
 
Matt Bai (NYT) 2012Even corporations,
 
though they couldn’t contribute to a candidate or a party,
were free to write
 
unlimited checks to something called a social-welfare group, whose principal
 
purpose,
ostensibly,
is issue advocacy
rather than political activity.
 
 
“So
under the old rules,
the Club for Growth
[groups]
couldn‟t broadcast an ad that said
 
„Vote Against Barack Obama,‟ but
it
[they] could spend that money on as many ads
 
as
it
[they]
wanted that said „Barack Obama has ruined America —
call and tell him
 
to stop!‟
 
That all changed with the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002,
popularly known as the McCain-Feingoldlaw. The new law stamped out soft money for good, but it also created a vacuum in political fund-raising. The partiescould no longer tap an endless stream of soft money,
but
thanks to the advent of the 527, rich
 
ideologues
with their own agendas
could write massive checks for the purpose of building
 
what were, essentially,
shadow parties
independent groups with their own turnout and
 
advertising campaigns
, limited in what they could say but accountable to no candidate or party boss.
 
 
Wealthy liberals like Soros and Lewis
,
along with groups like MoveOn.org
,
were
 
the first to spot the opportunity.
All told,
wealthy liberals spent something close to
 
$200 million in an effort to oust George W. Bush in 2004, setting an entirely new
 
standard for outside spending.
 
Contention 2: Activism
Subpoint A: Shareholder Activism prevents companies from controlling thepolitical atmosphere.
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 in
 these pages,
[which] is thus a salient countervailing force against the oligarchic trendspurportedly 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.
 
M Asif A TalpallikarHouston Lamar3
The list goes on, encompassing both individual shareholders and other institutional investors.
 
On the left
,
observers likeCraig Holmanof Public Citizen argue that
shareholders are increasingly less amenable to “
squander
” money on the
 political enthusiasms of their CEOs
.
Subpoint B: 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.
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
 
much of it thanks tocampaign workers they have imported from SEIU chapters in California
 
In study after study, door-to-door, in-personcampaigning
 
the unions‟ specialty —
has been shown to be a more effective strategyto turn out voters than blasting them with commercials.
 
After analyzing American elections, Lamare finds thatAFTER ELIMINATING OTHER VARIABLES, Union Contact on average increased turnout in nonLatino voters by 33%, and Latino voters by 44%.
In areas with “Heavy Union Activity,” [THE TYPE ALLOWED BY CITIZENS UNITED], Lamare finds
that UNIONS
almost doubled a [Caucasian] voter‟s chance of voting, and tripled a latino voter‟s chances.
 
Contention 3: Fundraising
 
YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW
217

You're Reading a Free Preview

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