Jan. PF Analysis

Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process.

Please make sure you understand how propositions of fact work before you read this.  You should read the  post a couple of posts back.  You did?  Awesome.  Let's continue.

"On balance" sometimes confuses people.  I think in all PF debates both sides concede that their opponents have some good arguments, but that OVERALL their own side is correct.  "On balance" simply makes sure you understand that you're going to HAVE to concede that your opponents arguments have some merit, but that your side OUTWEIGHS the other.  One way to think of it is that "On balance" is a synonym for "Overall."

Taking what you remember from propositions of fact, you can see that "the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" is A, "harms" is the verb, and "the election process" is B.  A solid understanding of what the Supreme Court decision entails is important.  This is pretty objective since the Supreme Court offers opinions on both sides of the issue which outline why they individually ruled how they did.  What I think is a little more elusive to define is "the election process."  What is this process?  Is it the campaigning?  Is it the mudslinging?  Is it the actual voting and does that include the information that voters receive to deliberate on who they should vote for?  Keep in mind, this debate involves federal offices, not state or local offices.

One other aspect to keep in mind is that the overwhelming support for the decision came from Republicans, with the majority of Democrats (including Barack Obama) being very critical of the decision. Just puttin' that out there...

Once you have solid definitions for "A," "harms," and "B" you can move into arguments for PRO and CON.

PRO
If the election process is as simple as people making informed decisions on how they vote, then any propaganda out there that might mislead voters will taint their decisions.  Movies like Fahrenheit 9/11 and 2016: Obama's America are intended to sway voter opinion.  At the most, these movies should stir debate and force people to do their own research.  But few people have the time/discipline to do that and will just think "Michael Moore said..." or "The Obama movie said..." and go with that.  There's a huge difference between an ignorant electorate and a misinformed electorate and the latter is just as dangerous if not more dangerous than the former.  You want to show that the decision of the Supreme Court has and can continue to lead to a misinformed electorate, thus harming the electoral process.

Another avenue for the PRO to explore is the "equal time" issue.  As debaters, you definitely understand that both sides deserve equal time.  Rioting in your debate round would ensue if your judge screwed up your time and gave your opponents more time than they were supposed to receive (I know that's happened to some of you and you know how badly it stinks).  The same holds true for the supporters of the two political parties in the country.  One Super PAC has the resources that another doesn't and is therefore able to promote its agenda more effectively.  For more about equal time look at the first PF topic I ever tackled in my job as Lanier Debate coach: The Fairness Doctrine, Sept. 2007.

One last issue for PRO is idea that a corporation is not afforded the same rights as an individual.  When a company winds up poisoning people and they are successfully sued their penalty is to pay out settlements.  However, if an individual (through their own negligence) poisons people then they are going to jail.  The law makes a distinction between individuals and companies run by individuals.  But corporations are NOT individual citizens and therefore what rights do they have?  Do corporations have a right to free speech? What if there are films financed by corporations or non-profits with foreign ties and investments? 

CON
As much as PRO might be the majority opinion among debaters (at least that's my first impression) CON has some very good arguments to make.

First and foremost is that the decision of the court allows for more free speech.  These films, for example, don't commit slander (legal definition: slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed)  In fact they are carefully orchestrated to go just far enough in encouraging the viewer make assumptions based on the facts that are presented in a certain way.  Moore's and D'Souza's films are criticized for not being true documentaries because they are made with a political agenda in mind.  However, a LOT of Hollywood films are produced with a political/social agenda in mind.  Are all film-makers bound by Feingold-McCain?  By restricting their release are you violating their free speech, not to mention free enterprise (not that documentary filmmakers are millionaires but they still need to eat).

Another point for the CON to utilize is the fact that this decision is in line with what a lot of media is able to do.  Days before an election, it's perfectly legal for a major/minor newspaper to editorialize about who they endorse for office.  It's almost an obligation.  How can that be okay, yet non-profit groups and corporations alike would be rendered silent if the decision was reversed?  Moreover, how much more harmful are journalistic endorsements of candidates than non-profit/corporate films? 

I realize I've given 3 PRO's and 2 CON's.  Sorry to those of you concerned with quantity over quality.  I feel the CON free speech point can probably be broken down into a couple of sub-points.  And with all topics and analysis I offer - Please do your own research.