Aff Ld Case
Value: DEMOCRACY
Crt: PRESERVING THE SANCTITY OF THE CONSTITUTION
CONTENION I: Undue potential for influence
This argument is contextualized by Peter Rothberg in a piece published in The Nation:Peter Rothberg, “The Story of 'Citizens United' vs. the FEC,” The Nation, March 2, 2011.
The results of the 2010 election bore out progressive fears as corporate-front groups flooded the electoral zone with massive contributions to reactionary Tea Party candidates. In fact, as Leonard's film makes clear, the kind of independent groups that corporations are now allowed to support spent $300 million to influence the 2010 midterm elections, more than every midterm election since 1990 combined.CONTENTION II: CORPORATIONS ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE BODIESDavid Kairys, “Money Isn’t Speech and Corporations Aren’t People,” Slate Magazine, January 22, 2010.In Citizens United, Justice Kennedy discusses business corporations as if they were clubs or political associations with political viewpoints and elected leaders. But corporate managers don't function as representatives or employees of shareholders, who have no say, no shared political views, and no expectation that their investments will be used for political ends …. Increasing the constitutional rights of corporations beyond their business purposes is really about increasing the rights and power of corporate managers. Government has enabled corporate managers to control huge accumulations of wealth without any personal risk—an arrangement that contributes to wild, bubble-producing economic swings and collapses. Citizens United invites that arrangement directly into politics and elections.CONTENTION III: FOREIGN ACCESSJason Linkins, “The Supreme Court’s Citizens United Decision is Terrifying,” Huffington Post, March 23, 2010.A very large percentage of U.S. corporations are owned by foreign persons or entities. In 2006, USA Today reported: "Nearly one in five U.S. oil refineries is owned by foreign companies. Foreign companies
Crt: PRESERVING THE SANCTITY OF THE CONSTITUTION
CONTENION I: Undue potential for influence
This argument is contextualized by Peter Rothberg in a piece published in The Nation:Peter Rothberg, “The Story of 'Citizens United' vs. the FEC,” The Nation, March 2, 2011.
The results of the 2010 election bore out progressive fears as corporate-front groups flooded the electoral zone with massive contributions to reactionary Tea Party candidates. In fact, as Leonard's film makes clear, the kind of independent groups that corporations are now allowed to support spent $300 million to influence the 2010 midterm elections, more than every midterm election since 1990 combined.CONTENTION II: CORPORATIONS ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE BODIESDavid Kairys, “Money Isn’t Speech and Corporations Aren’t People,” Slate Magazine, January 22, 2010.In Citizens United, Justice Kennedy discusses business corporations as if they were clubs or political associations with political viewpoints and elected leaders. But corporate managers don't function as representatives or employees of shareholders, who have no say, no shared political views, and no expectation that their investments will be used for political ends …. Increasing the constitutional rights of corporations beyond their business purposes is really about increasing the rights and power of corporate managers. Government has enabled corporate managers to control huge accumulations of wealth without any personal risk—an arrangement that contributes to wild, bubble-producing economic swings and collapses. Citizens United invites that arrangement directly into politics and elections.CONTENTION III: FOREIGN ACCESSJason Linkins, “The Supreme Court’s Citizens United Decision is Terrifying,” Huffington Post, March 23, 2010.A very large percentage of U.S. corporations are owned by foreign persons or entities. In 2006, USA Today reported: "Nearly one in five U.S. oil refineries is owned by foreign companies. Foreign companies