You are on page 1of 4

Arjun and I Negate Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v.

Federal Election Commission harms the election process.


6 seconds

Framework
We observe the following:

1. According to the Supreme Court, the only circumstance in which we can outweigh the right to political free speech is to SIGNIFICANTLY quantitatively reduce corruption in a Quid-pro-Quo form.
a. Thus, before we examine lower levels of the debate, the pro side MUST prove quantitative corruption reduction.

2. Because the foundation of our election system is our Constitutional rights, if the decision preserves Constitutional Rights, you MUST negate before evaluating affirmative Arguments.

25 seconds

First Amendment Rights


Our Election Process can only exist because of Americas underlying democratic foundation.
The CITIZENS UNITED Decision was made because:

1. The First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and 2. that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker.

17 seconds THUS:
Corporations, as

associations of individuals, therefore have speech rights under the

First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, 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.

Contention 2: SuperPAC Ads Good


Subpoint A: SuperPACs do Positive Ads
US NEWS
JENNIFER MARSICO

, Senior Research Associate at the American Enterprise Institute Jan 12, 2012

MARSICO 12
FEC reports show that super PACs have spent more [in 2012] on ads supporting their chosen candidates than ads attacking other

candidates. According to the FEC, since the campaign began, $9.6 million has been spent on positive ads, compared to $5 million on negative ads.
The belief that super PACs are hurting U.S. politics stems from one of two arguments: 1.) super PACs have too great an influence on elections, and 2.) the vast majority of their activity is devoted to negative campaigning. But evidence from both 2010 and 2012 shows that neither argument is correct.

16 seconds

Subpoint B: Negative Ads Good


Richard R. Lau Rutgers University Lee Sigelman The George Washington University Ivy Brown Rovner Rutgers University And Cambridge University Conducted 2 Meta-Analyses of 111 separate studies and found that: Negative Campaigning is [not] a more effective method of garnering votes, even though it tends to be more memorable and stimulate knowledge about the campaign. Nor is there any reliable evidence that negative campaigning depresses voter turnout, negative campaigning is no more effective than positive campaigning even though negative campaigns appear to be somewhat more memorable and to generate somewhat greater campaign-relevant knowledge
holds

26 seconds

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


may

As we learn more about the multiple and often conflicting reactions that citizens have to campaigns, we discover specific messages both inform and engage citizens. [Without discouraging turnout]
that

13 second

Contention 3: Super PACs Economy


By making our Economy better, we create a better society, which has a better Election Process

Subpoint A: Stimulus
The Wall Street Journal Explains:

Big outside political groups armed with an unprecedented river of money had appeared poised to be pivotal players in the 2012 elections. So far, these super PACs are looking less than super.

Freed of any constraints on the size of donations, political action committees have since April poured more than $250 million into the presidential and select congressional races ,
more than what the two 1996 presidential candidates spent in total on their campaigns records show.

The flood of spending doesn't appear to have significantly influenced voter opinion in key states in the presidential contest or in top congressional races.
But signs are few that super PACs have had the major impact that both supporters and critics predicted. And then there is my home state, North Carolina: In North Carolina, which the GOP believed it could retake easily after losing to Mr. Obama by a sliver in 2008, conservative super PACs have spent $23 million trying to put the state beyond Mr. Obama's reach. Through the end of August, the Romney campaign and its allies had committed to ads worth a total of nearly $34 million in the state, compared with nearly $23 million by the Obama campaign. And today, a new Civitas poll has come out (replacing the absurd Survey USA/Civitas poll of 9/10 that had 30% of African-Americans voting for Romney) showing Obama up over Romney in North Carolina by 4%. This moves the NC RCP average from -2% Obama to +1% Obama. That makes the new "no toss-up state" tally 347 electoral votes Obama/Biden, 191 electoral votes Romney/Ryan and means that Mitt Romney is now officially behind in ALL of the 2012 swing states.

the state economies have received these billionaire bucks for free at no cost to the American taxpayer and no increase to the national debt.
Essentially, anything that Obama does short of losing means that It's also a pretty nice reward to these states for going blue in 2008 and all pretty brilliant of Obama and his people, if you ask me. Now some might argue that it is really the Bush Supreme Court and/or the arrogance of billionaires who deserve the "credit" for this state of affairs. Others may ask, what is the "heartbreaking" part of this story? The Wall Street Journal has the answer to that the heartbreak of the fat cats, of course: "If the Republicans don't win the presidency and don't win the Senate, there are going to be a lot of millionaires wondering where all the money went," said Steve Elmendorf, who helped run the 2004 Kerry campaign. "There will be a lot of soul searching and a lot of questioning of the groups who promised to deliver."

28 seconds Subpoint B: Jobs


The Daily News Explains: Corporation-funded super PACs will be spending great golden wads of greenbacks on advertising in the newspaper, radio, television and outdoor advertising media. They will be pumping up the paychecks and creating new employment opportunities for graphics designers, writers and actors who are a reasonable
facsimile of the common man. The people who provide direct support for these industries will also benefit in these trickle-down economic times:

maintain transmission towers and the bringing food to the set where make them sound exactly, almost, like us. But the economic trickle doesn't stop there. No sir-eee. The

the construction guys who put up the billboards, the newspaper carriers, those crazy folks who caterers actors are learning lines to

workers at mills creating newsprint and poster papers are receiving paycheck stimulation, as are the loggers who cut the trees to feed the mill. So are the farmers who supply and the mechanics who maintain the construction guys' equipment. The factory workers who make all the tools, parts and supplies needed to do the job that does
the advertising. And, too,

the technical support people

25 seconds