NEGATIVE: DEMOCRACY
“Freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of assembly and petition -- this set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has written that this freedom is "the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom." Without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither and die.”
Because I agree with the American Civil Liberties Union, I must negate today’s resolution: “Resolved The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010) ruling undermines democracy in the United States.”
Today, I offer the value of democracy supported by a criterion of free speech. Writing the Opinion of the Court in the Citizens United case, Justice Anthony Kennedy states that “speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people.”
In other words, in a democracy, it is vital that the people be allowed to speak out both in favor and against candidates for public office.
Contention One: The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 denies free speech.
Subpoint A: The 30/60 rule denies free speech.
Justice Kennedy states “The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election.
Subpoint B: The money restrictions included in the BCRA restricts free speech.
Again, Justice Kennedy: “Section 441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech.”
Kennedy cited the 1976 Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo, which stated “As a restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign, [that statute] necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reach.”
In these two ways, the BCRA undermined free speech and democracy.
Kennedy points out “Were the court to uphold these restrictions, the government could repress speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the speech process.”
Because the Citizens United ruling overturns the significant Section 441B of the BCRA, the ruling does not undermine democracy. In fact, the ruling supports free speech, an integral criterion for democracy.
Contention Two: Money does not decide elections.
The BCRA was passed with the idea that money is a primary determining factor in elections. There can be no doubt that having a healthy treasury is an advantage.
However, money alone is not a determining factor in elections. One need look no further than the 2012 Republican primary for the United States Senate seat in Texas.
The Houston Chronicle reported on July 20, 2012, that David Dewhurst QUOTE “would rank among the richest U.S. senators, if elected, with an average net worth of $177 million.” UNQUOTE
From ABC News.com, July 31, 2012, QUOTE “Dewhurst enjoyed a huge financial advantage over Cruz. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Dewhurst poured $11 million of his own personal fortune- he founded a successful energy company called Falcon Seaboard- into his campaign, spending a total of $19 million, as compared to Cruz’s $7 million spent. But ultimately Dewhurst’s wallet was no match for Cruz’s political prowess.”
David Dewhurst outspent Ted Cruz by a considerable amount. Yet, Ted Cruz was able to upset Dewhurst and win the primary election.
That money is helpful, but not the only determining factor, means that the BCRA unnecessarily restricted funds and thus undermined democracy.
In conclusion, because the Supreme Court Citizens United case overturned the BCRA restrictions, the case does not undermine democracy. In fact, it restores free speech and supports democracy.
Now, I will go on to attack my opponent’s case.