Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
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


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





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.
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,
for most intents and purposes
at any time in the 2008 campaig
(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
is issue advocacy
rather than political activity.
under the old rules,
the Club for Growth
couldn‟t broadcast an ad that said
„Vote Against Barack Obama,‟ but
[they] could spend that money on as many ads
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,
thanks to the advent of the 527, rich
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
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
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 “
” money on the
 political enthusiasms of their CEOs
Subpoint B: Union Activism increases turnout
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
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
almost doubled a [Caucasian] voter‟s chance of voting, and tripled a latino voter‟s chances.
Contention 3: Fundraising

You're Reading a Free Preview

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