Teacher: Ms.

Russell
Time Slot: Tuesday - Second Debate
Pro Team: Cole Greenberg & Isabella Tilley
Con Team: Will Ederer & Jake Foley-Keene
Topic: Repealing Citizens United
Resolution: Be it resolved that an amendment placing reasonable limits on the spending
of money by candidates and others to influence elections:
Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect
the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may
regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates
and others to influence elections.
Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this
article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and
corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by limiting such entities
from spending money to influence elections.
Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the
power to abridge the freedom of the press.
Definitions & Background Information
PAC: Political action committee
There are 2 different types of PACS:
Separate Segregated Funds, which collects contributions
from a limited class of individuals and uses this money to make
contributions and expenditures to influence federal elections 11 CFR
100.6. As the sponsor of the SSF (i.e., its "connected organization"),
the corporation, labor organization or incorporated membership
organization may absorb all the costs of establishing and operating the
SSF and soliciting contributions to it. These administrative expenses
are fully exempt from the Acts definitions of contribution and
expenditure (Federal Election Commission: SSFs and Nonconnected
PACS). SSFs can only collect money from people related to its
organization.
Nonconnected Political Committee, which is financially
independent. This means that the nonconnected political committee
must pay for its own administrative expenses, using the contributions
it raises. Although an organization may spend funds to establish or
support a nonconnected PAC, these expenditures are considered
contributions to the PAC and are subject to the dollar limits and other
requirements of the Act (Federal Election Commission: SSFs and
Nonconnected PACS). Unlike SSFs, non-connected political committees
can solicit funds from the general public.
Super PAC: a type of independent political action committee which
may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, and

individuals but is not permitted to contribute to or coordinate directly

with parties or candidates (Oxford Dictionaries)
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 2010: Permits
corporations and unions to use their treasury funds to make
independent expenditures in connection with federal elections and
electioneering communications (usually political ads). (Federal Election
Commission: SSFs and Nonconnected PACs).
Dark Money: political spending whose ultimate source is shrouded
in secrecy because it comes from groups not required to disclose their
donors.
Contentions
1. The ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
enables corporate control of the government, which allows for
more corruption.
2. Citizens voices are drowned out by the spending of large
amounts of money.
3. Candidates are forced to raise more and more funds, and the
election process focuses more and more money than abilities.
4. Candidates have been attacking any and all campaign finance
rules left since the verdict of Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission
5. The ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
creates proliferation of secret 501(c)(4) groups( undisclosed
donors)
Notes
1. The ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
enables corporate control of the government, which allows for
more corruption.

But they [(corporations)] are not themselves members of We

the People by whom and for whom our Constitution was
established (Corporations are not people) (Stevens)
Citizens United has unleashed corporate bosses to tell
employees how to vote. Prior to that 2010 Court ruling, top
executives were barred by federal law from using corporate
funds to push workers to support particular
candidates( Corporate Control) (Jim Hightower)

Demos and U.S. PIRG analysis of Federal Election Commission data on

Super PACs from their advent in 2010 through the end of 2011 reveals

the following: In a poll commissioned by People For the American Way

78% believe that corporations should be limited in how much they can
spend to influence elections, and 70% believe they already have too
much influence over elections
o For-profit businesses use Super PACs as an avenue to influence
federal elections.17% of the itemized funds raised by Super
PACs came from for-profit businessesmore than $30
million.
o Because Super PACsunlike traditional PACsmay accept
funds from nonprofits that are not required to disclose their
donors, they provide a vehicle for secret funding of electoral
campaigns. 6.4% of the itemized funds raised by Super
PACs cannot be feasibly traced back to an original
source.
o Super PACs are a tool used by wealthy individuals and
institutions to dominate the political process. 93% of the
itemized funds raised by Super PACs from individuals in
2011 came in contributions of at least $10,000, from just
twenty-three out of every 10 million people in the U.S.
population. (Lioz & Bowie)

History repeatedly shows us that putting too much money in

politics will lead to corruption.
o In the 1896 election, William McKinley ran and won the
presidential election after raising $16 million, $6 or $7
million of which was money from corporations. The
McKinley administration was very pro-business.
(Washington Post, Jaime Fuller)
o Watergate was basically a campaign finance scandal,
according to Chris Dolan, political science professor at
Lebanon Valley College in Pennsylvania (Forgetting a Key
Lesson from Watergate?, CNN)
Nixons reelection committee secretly sought millions
of dollars from corporations. Barry Sussman, a former
Washington Post editor who led coverage on
Watergate, told CNN that the reelection committee
extorted money from these companies, and
threatened to have the IRS audit the companies that
did not comply. In return for donations, Nixons
administration intervened in an antitrust action to
help out one donor and relaxed regulations for
another company that donated money. (Forgetting a
Key Lesson from Watergate?)

2. Citizens voices are drowned out by the spending of large

amounts of money

When corporations, or other big money spenders, are able to

flood the airwaves with their messages, they can effectively
drown out the voices of other citizens( Liz Kennedy)
candidates and the public will become mere bystanders in
elections (A Montana Judge)
by limiting the size of the largest contributions, such restrictions
aim to democratize the influence that money itself may bring to
bear upon the electoral process (Supreme court justice Breyer)
On the other hand, restrictions on the amount any one
individual can contribute to a particular seek to protect the
integrity of the electoral process( Richard Hasen) ( Chancellor's
Professor of Law at university of California)
Super PACs raised about $181 million in the last 2 years, and
roughly half that money came from about 200 super rich people
(Politico)
A national survey from April 2012 conducted on behalf of the
Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of
Law found that the rise of super PACs will affect voter
participation.
o Two in three Americans said that they trust government
less because of perceived corporate influence in
government. Republicans and Democrats uniformly agree.
o One in four Americans said that they are less likely to vote
because big donors to super PACs have so much more
influence over elected officials than average Americans.
o

34% of respondents with no more than a high school

education and 34% of respondents with an annual
household income of less than $35,000 said they would
be less likely to vote [for the stated reason].
Super PACs are drowning out the voices of poorer
people who need more representation. According to
these statistics, super PACs easily make a
government for the rich, by the rich, and of the
rich.

29% of black people and 34% of Latinx people said

that they would be less likely to vote [for the stated
reason].
Not only are super PACs drowning out the voices of
citizens, they are helping to drown out the voices of
citizens who need more of a voice.

3. Candidates are forced to raise more and more funds, and the
election process focuses more and more money than abilities.

The mere threat of super PAC dollars often prompts candidates

to raise even more money, in order to have the resources to
respond to outside attacks (Andrew Mayersohn)
The Total cost of US elections increased by over close to a billion
dollars from 2008 to 2012. (Opensecrets.org)
The money race continues to escalating and shows no signs of
slowing down (Andrew Mayersohn)
This increased cost makes it unfair for candidates who cant raise
as much money

4. Candidates have been attacking any and all campaign finance

rules left since the verdict of Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission

Corporations are fighting to lift bans on direct contributions, and

contribution limits. Opponents of reasonable money in politics
rules are fighting to allow corporations to contribute directly to
candidates, and arguing against contribution limits. ( Liz
Kennedy)

5. The ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

creates a use of dark money ( undisclosed donors)
These contributors get all the perks of influence without any of
the public scrutiny. And if we cant trace their connections to the
actions of elected representatives, were much less likely to find
out about illegal qui transactions ( Richard Hasen) (Undisclosed
donors are bad)
Voters deserve information, and are in danger of being misled
without it. For example, a campaign about a change to zoning

policy favorable to Wal-Mart was run by a group calling itself

Littleton Neighbors Voting No. There, state disclosure laws
revealed that the group was funded by Wal-Mart, and not a group
of concerned citizens as the name suggests. (voters are misled
with the use of dark money) (Demos, 10 WAYS CITIZENS UNITED
ENDANGERS DEMOCRACY)
A report released yesterday by the Center for Responsive Politics
indicates that dark money spending is nearly three times higher
now than it was at the same point in 2012. ( dark money use
has increased) (NYU school of law
disclosure may (albeit to a lesser extent than other measures)
deter actual corruption and its appearance, by shining light on
who is spending large amounts of money to get whom elected.
(why we should disclose donors) (NYU)

Counter-Arguments & Rebuttals

1. The investment of super PACs do not have an effect. Obama was
able to win the 2012 election despite the presence of super PACs
for Republican candidates.
1. The mere threat of super PAC dollars often prompts
candidates to raise even more money, in order to have the
resources to respond to outside attacks. (Rebuttal to idea
that the investments dont have a big effect.)
2. Looking at the House election of 1996, challengers (not
incumbents) who spent between half a million and a million
dollars won 40% of the time, while challengers who spent
more than a million dollars won 83% of the time (Bradley
A. Smith, Cato Institute).
1. Clearly, spending has an effect.
b. This amendment infringes upon the First Amendment and
therefore the resolution is unconstitutional. {Alternatively, they
may argue that it is not worth infringing upon the First
Amendment to do implement the resolution.}

i.

ii.

The whole point of a constitutional amendment is to

amend the constitution. The First Amendment does not
prevent this amendment from being passed.
1. The 18th Amendment passed Prohibition, and the
21st Amendment repealed Prohibition. These two
amendments oppose each other, but it is false to say
that the 21st Amendment is unconstitutional
because it goes against the 18th Amendment.
IMPORTANT: The resolution does not aim to take away
freedom of press and it will NOT take away freedom of
press. Section 3 explicitly states this fact.
1. The resolution only states that Congress and the
States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the
raising and spending of money by candidates and
others to influence elections. Nothing in this
resolution states that Congress and the States will
have the power to regulate electioneering
communications.
2. Money is not speech therefore companies spending
money on elections do not have the right of speech
concerning their expenses.

Money is property; it is not speech (Supreme Justice Stevens)

It does not follow, however, that the First Amendment provides the
same measure of protection to the use of money to accomplish such
goals as it provides to the use of ideas to achieve the same results
( Supreme justice stevens)
This decidedly was not the view of the constitutional founders, who
favored the preeminence of individual interests over those of big
business ( Judge Nelson Montana supreme court) (founding fathers did
not believe that freedom of speech was synonymous with freedom to
spend)

4. Super PACs are independent groups and dont coordinate with the
candidate.
a. This claim is unsubstantiated and ignores the truth. Super PACs
are coordinating with the candidates.
i. In the 2012 election, President Obama sent White House
cabinet members, campaign officials, and White House
staff to speak at a fundraiser for his super PAC, Priorities
USA Action. In the same election, Mitt Romney sent
campaign aides to speak at a fundraising event for his
super PAC, Restore Our Future. (Super PACs a Disaster for
Democracy, CNN)
1. This is legal but use it to show that they are clearly
partnering up.
ii.
For all practical purposes, there are no rules against
coordination, said Fred Wertheimer. (Washington Post)

b. Since it is so hard to draw the line between coordination and

non-coordination, it would just be easier to affirm the resolution,
which would allow Congress to set limits on the amounts of
money super PACs can raise.
i. Since super PACs are so easily able to coordinate with their
candidates, and no real rules can prevent them from
talking to each other without infringing on their First
Amendment rights, Congress should simply be able to limit
the amount of money that super PACs can raise for the
candidates because currently super PACs are essentially
directly fundraising for the candidate.
6. Repealing Citizens United and implementing the amendment of the
resolution would limit political competition.
a. Political competition is limited with Citizens United. Candidates
who can raise more money have a much bigger advantage, and
candidates with less money cant compete.

First Affirmative Speech

In 2010 the supreme court decided to allow unions, corporations,
and associations to spend unlimited amounts of money in elections.
The Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government
from restricting independent political expenditures by nonprofit
corporations. Citizens United is a conservative non- profit organization
that challenged the McCain-Feingold law, which regulates the financing
of political campaigns. After one of Citizens Uniteds political
expenditures was barred by a court in DC using the McCain-Feingold
law, Citizens United brought the case Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission to the supreme court.
The decision created an abundance of Super pacs and
skyrocketed the average cost of running in an election. a super PAC is
a type of independent political action committee which may raise
unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, and individuals
but is not permitted to contribute to or coordinate directly with parties
or candidates. Our nation as a whole is in desperate need of limits on

corporate political spending. The Washington post conducted a poll

with Americans of both parties and said quote Eight in 10 poll
respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow
unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent "strongly"
opposed. 75 % of Republicans, and 85% of Democrats opposed
unlimited corporate spending according to the washington post poll.
Candidates are forced to raise more and more funds, and the election
process focuses more and more money than abilities. According to
data collected by opensecrets.org the total cost of US elections
increased by close to over a billion dollars from 2008 to 2012. The
importance on finances not only purges suitable candidates who dont
have enough funding, but it often replaces politically educated
candidates with economically powerful candidates who are less suited
for the job.
Unlimited corporate spending leads the country into the grasps
of monetary control. According to slate the online magazine,
Increasingly, large sums contributed by the wealthy ,affect who wins
elections and what the winners do once in office. Without limits on
political expenditures the basic economic resources needed to run in
an election will grow higher and higher. As stated by political writer
Andrew Mayersohn, The money race continues to escalate and shows
no signs of slowing down.
The ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
enables corporate control of the government, which allows for more
corruption. History repeatedly shows us that putting too much money
in politics will lead to corruption. Watergate was basically a campaign
finance scandal, according to Chris Dolan, political science professor
at Lebanon Valley College in Pennsylvania. As Nixons administration
sought millions of dollars from corporations it became more corrupt
and extorted money from companies. In addition to this Nixon would
allow corporations to control government legislature to benefit them as
long as both sides were being helped. Corporate control of government
has gotten out of hand and many Americans feel as though the
corruption is too much. As found by a NYU study quote, Two in three
Americans said that they trust government less because of perceived
corporate influence in government. Republicans and Democrats
uniformly agree.
Unlimited corporate political spending drowns out the average
citizen's voice by gaining control through large sums of money. As
stated by a montana judge interviewed by political writer Liz Kennedy,
candidates and the public will become mere bystanders in elections.
The 2010 supreme court ruling lowers the participation, and impact of
the people by a drastic amount.

A national survey from April 2012 conducted on behalf of the

Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law
that was previously mentioned, found that the rise of super PACs will
affect voter participation. The survey discovered that One in four
Americans said that they are less likely to vote because big donors to
super PACs have so much more influence over elected officials than
average Americans. The lower class of Americans is losing its voice
even faster than the average middle class American. According to the
same NYU school of law survey, over of Americans with an average
household income less than 35,000 dollars would be less likely to vote
under the obvious exclusion of their opinions and voices.
According to these statistics, super PACs easily make a
government for the rich, by the rich, and of the rich. According to
supreme court justice Breyer by limiting the size of the largest
contributions, such restrictions aim to democratize the influence that
money itself may bring to bear upon the electoral process.
For these reasons, my partner and I strongly encourage a pro
ballot. Thank you.

Second Affirmative Speech

Campaign finance reform has existed since the early 20th
century, after Theodore Roosevelt was beat by William McKinley, who
had received more donations than Roosevelt and in turn made his
administration very pro-business. In his administration, in 1907,
Roosevelt passed the Tillman Act, which made corporate contributions
to federal candidates illegal, with no real way to enforce this law.
Campaign finance reform continued after the Watergate scandal in the
1960s and 1970s, when the people became distrustful of the way
federal officials were using money for election campaigns.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruling in Buckley v. Valeo,
1976, that some provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act were
unconstitutional because they violated the First Amendment, our
nation has seen election regulation become less and less effective
because of cases like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In

this case, the Supreme Courts ruling gave way to super PACs, which
allow candidates to raise exorbitant amounts of money for their
election campaigns, as long as the candidates and the super PAC are
not technically coordinating. Extremely wealthy people and
corporations can donate as much money as they would like to
presidential candidates.
In addition, super PAC donors can donate secretly, making it
impossible for the public to hold its politicians accountable. According
to Richard Hasen, undisclosed donors get all the perks of influence
without any of the public scrutiny. And if we cant trace their
connections to the actions of elected representatives, were much less
likely to find out about illegal transactions. Super PACs have increased
the number of undisclosed donors. According to the New York
University School of Law, A report released by the Center for
Responsive Politics indicates that dark money spending is nearly three
times higher now than it was at the same point in 2012.
Super PACs are also almost exclusively used by only the
extremely wealthy. Demos & US PIRG analysis of Federal Election
Commission date on super PACs found that 93% of the itemized funds
raised by Super PACs from individuals in 2011 came in contributions of
at least $10,000, from just twenty-three out of every 10 million people
in the U.S. population. Since super PACs are so exclusively contributed
to by extremely wealthy people, poorer people, even just normal,
middle class Americans, are left without a voice. Wealthy people are
able to strongly influence elections by helping to fund political ads,
while poorer people simply dont have the resources to contribute
thousands, even millions, of dollars to campaign ads for their favorite
candidate. Not only do poorer people lack the resources to tirelessly
promote their favorite candidate, they are also less inclined to vote
because of the overwhelming influence of a select few. A study done
on behalf of the Brennan Center of Justice found that 1 in 4 Americans
are less likely to vote because of super PAC influence on elections.
Super PACs are literally increasing the power of the wealthy and
decreasing the power of normal Americans.
On top of this frightening income inequality in elections, as my
partner mentioned before, super PACs can and will lead to corruption.
There is nothing to stop corporations and wealthy individuals from
influencing politicians once they are elected to office. Nixon and
McKinleys administrations are certainly not the only administrations to
have been friendly with their donors. This corruption is made even
scarier by the fact that the public cant know who donated to the
politicians. While corporations and extremely rich people are swaying
our politicians, we, the average Americans, often dont know what
might be influencing a politician. The kind of corruption enabled by
secretive donors seems like a throwback to the political machines of
the Gilded Age, certainly not something that should be happening

today in 2015 in our democratic society. It is unfair to let certain people

have more influence over a politicians policies simply because they
have more money.
Because the super PACs created by Citizens United drown out the
voices of average citizens and enable more corruption, it is clear that
the ruling of Citizens United must be repealed, and a constitutional
amendment should be put in place to allow Congress and States to
regulate candidates campaign money, whether it is contributed
directly to the candidate or to nonconnected political committees like
super PACs.