Eng 102 Argumentative Paper

EY*n?u0 toz- *Gq'. Krivitz i Citizens United: Horv Corporations Control US Elections By Bramion Kri"-itz ENG 201/70834 Jennii'er \Vaters Ilate Ilue: Deceml-.er 4- 201 9 Argulnent Research |'aper K:iivitzii Thesis statement: Although many corporations and political action committees argue that Citizens United should not be overturned because the political donations of corporations are protected by the First Amendment and because political spending does not guarantee a victory, Citizens United should be overtumed because it stifles democracy and drowns out the voices of regular Americans. Outline I. Introduction 1I. Campaign finance reguiation has varied greatly across the world and in the United States and these regulations have had a range of effects on political spending and democracy. A. Campaign finance before Citizens United 1. Other campaign finaace laws a) BCRA B. Overview of the Citizens United Case 1 . What caused &e case a) Hillary the movie 2. What the judges decided C, Preview of main points D. Thesis statement lll. Many corporations, labor unions, and PACS argue that donations to political causes are proteeted by the First Amsndment. A. Corporations are just large groups of people and groups should not lose their rights 1. Ccrporate democracy gives everyone a voice on what the corporation does IV Krivitz iii 2. The judges ruled that corporations have rights B. Money is considered a form of speech and should not be regulated by the govemment 1. Abortion example Campaign spending does not have influence over the results ofan election. A. Campaign spending just amplifies the things that parties are saying 1. Speaker example B. Statistics about campaign spending and results l. Winners attract morley and not vice versa Citizens United allo$,s corporations and labor unions to have too much inl]uence in American elections and can cause the undermining ofdemocracy. A. Large corporate donations to politicians can cause politicians to put the interests ofthe large donors in front oftheir constituents 1. Concentrates power to a small number of individuals a) PAC leaders, CEOs, and Rich donors 2, Politicians are more loyal to donors a) Calling experiment B. Corporate interests are often much different than Americans and these interests could hurt the average American 1. Large donations can drown out the voice of regular constituents a) Statistics of donations by amount (above and below $2000) and donations bY PAC's VI Krivitz iv 2. Examples of corporations campaigning for deregulation even though it may hurt American citizens a) Environmental regulations C" Citizens United allows foreign eitizens and corporations to have influence over Arnerican elections. 1. This is already illegai 2. This may ailow foreign govemments or citizens to influence American eiections a) Obama quote 3. This could also allow lbreign corporations to influence American elections very easily D. Summary of main points Citizens United reduces the govemment's power to regulate who is spending money on and influeircing elections and hurts the average American. A. By regulating political spending by corporations, the governmeul can protect the voices of regular Americans. i. Super PACs and rich donors outspend reguiar American by a very large margin a) Election spending statistics 2. Reducing election spending increases politiciaa's reliance on their regular constituents a) More reliance on small donors Krivite v b) Politicians must be popular with many Americans to get campaigo money B. Most American support the overfuming of the Citizens United decision VII. Citizens United should be overtumed because the govemrnent should be able to regulate money spent on elections. A. Corporations are not provided any rights by the constitution or triltr ofrights 1. Regulating corporate spending does not infringe on the first amendment rights ofthe corporation's employees or shareholders. 2. The view ofthe corporation is often very different from their employees. a) An example of this is employee pay or workers rights b) tsnvironmental Protections 3. Corporalions are not democracies and their powff is held by a small number of PeoPle 4. Traditionat speech law permits for the regulating ofmoney spent B. Regulating money spent allows the government to protect American elections form foreign in{iuence VIIL Citizens United should be ove1tffrted because corporate spending undermines democracy, harbors corruption and does affect the results ofelections' lX.. Conclusion A. SummarY of main Points B. Restate thesis C" Closing statement Krivitz I In the 2016 elections, over $6 billion was spent by candidates an<l political organizalions to try and srvay the election in their favor and much ofthis money can be spent because ofthe Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (Citizens United). Throughout the years, many dillerent regulations and court cases have shaped how companies, candidates and individuals can donate or accept money for political causes. Some ofthe laws and court cases that have greatly influenced campaign finance include McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (McConnell v. FE(), the Federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), and Buckley v. Valeo. Bttt ttrc most impactful case by far is Citizens llnited. Citizens United overturned many previous Suprenie Court rulings incLadmg McConneJl v. FEC ard deemed that the limits on corporate political spending in rhe BCRA and other laws are unconstitutionai. Although many corporations aad political action committees argue that Citizens llnited should not be overtumed because the political donations of corporations are protected by the Firsl Amendment and because political spending does not guaraotee a victory, Citizens United should be ovedumed because it stifles democracy and drowns out the voices of regular Americans. Political donations and gifts have been a major topic of debate in the United States since its inception and many diifetent strategies have been used to try and reguiate and control thern' At the core of this probiem is an issue thal is still debated today, do gifts to politicians without purpose sway the actions ofthe recipients ofthose gifts. The goal of many campaign finance regulations is to curb this type of behavior and limit certain parties' influence over elections' Some of these laws came under scrutiny in the 2010 Supreme Court Case, Citizens United' One of these laws, the BRCA, barred the organization Citizens United tiom making a documentary called Htllary: The Movie because it was within 60 days of-an election iSmith 139)' They then sued the Federal Election Committee for infringing on their First Amendment rights' In the end L Ktivitz 2 the court ruled that the BR.CA and many other laws were unconstilutional because they" in fact" violate the First Amendment (Simpson). The two main parties in the debate over the Citizens Unitod case are concerned citizens and politicians, and corporations, super PACs, and business leaders. For corporations, super PACs, and business leaders, the overtuming of Citizens United would most likely mean the loss oftheir right to speak in elections and could also reduce their profits and stock price. On the other hand, the overturning of Citizens United would likely allow regular citizens to have more influence over politics and make politicians more aceountabie to their constituents. Corporations argue &at people should support Citizens United because it prolects the First Amendment rights of corporatiorx. Protecting the right to &ee speech is enshrined in American democracy aad is one ofthe pillars ofthe government, Corporations argue that limiting political spending infringes on their and their stockholders' constitutional rights. This is because corporations are seen by many as a group of individuals and these individuals should not iose their rights rvhen they join a corporation (Bowie). This idea is supported by The Supreme Court when they say that complex laws on corporations and people damage free speech. Corporations also argue that their spending in eiections is protected by the First Amendment because money is a form of speech protected by the Constitution. The court also supports tlris when saying, '"Speaking out in today's world often requires large expendirures ofmoney, so a ban on corporate independent expenditures amocnts to aa outright ban on speech" (Simpson)' Another example of why money equates 10 speech is because "if a legislature passed a law saying it shali be illegai to spend any money to procure or provide abortion services, I think most ofus rvould recognize that that would in&inge on any right that might exist to obtain an abortion" (Smith 144). Corporations argue that Citizens United protects their colstitutional rights 3 I L + r bol hncr lJg' KyititzS because corporations are large groups ofpeople who still have rights and because they money the spend is a form of speech protected by the Filst Amendmert. Corporations also argue that Ciliz€ns United skould not be overtumed because political spending does not always influence an election and only informs more voters. Informing more voters allows the public to become more knowledgeable and make better infoimed decisions in elections. A good example of this is when Steven law says "Super PACs are only'the amplilication system, so . . . if the music is lousy, it doesn't matter if yon turn it up. It's still not going to sound all that convincing" {qtd. In Price 414). Many corporations also assert that lO spending ia elections does not unfairly sway the election to one side" There are many examples ofa corporation supporting and donating too one candidate just for another candidate to win. In the 2016 presidential election, the largest super PAC, fuse to Right, used their $81 million to supporl Jeb Bush, who later e ded up dropping out of the race because of a lack of support from voters (Price 413). Even though the candidate who spends the rnost usually win, this is most likely because winning attracts spending and not the other way around (Koerth)' Crloups that support the Citizens United decision, assert that political speech simply allows voters to rnake more informed decisioas and spending does not always unfairl;' sway elections. On the other side, many argue that Citizens United should be overtumed because it allows corporations and labor unions to have too much influence in American elections and can rmdermine democracy. The popularity of grassrcots candidates who have vowed not to take money from corporations or the rich such as Bemie Sander shows that many Americans arc worried about big moneys influence in elections (Price 411-2)' Many concemed citizens and activists believe that, "When the money cornes from too few donors that have too much in{luence, that creates a distortion ofour political proeess" (qtd. in Price 413). A clear example 7 I c\ l0 of this inequality is that during the lirst quarter of the 2016 eiection "More campaign donations came ftom 3 Manhallan ZIP codes than from ev*y ZIP code in the country with a majority African-American residents, combined". Many argue that this inequality caused by Citizens United undermines demooracy and can drou.n the voices of millions of Americans rrhile promoting the voices of the few. More evidence supporting this theory was shown in a study where 2000 individuals requested a meeting with an elected representative, the ooes who identified themselves as political donors werc five times more likely to get a meeting than those who identified as constituents (Price 413-4). It is clear that Citizens United has darnaged American democraey and hurt many Americans for the bonefit of a few. Lastly, many argue that Citizeas United is wrong because it allows lbreign shareholders to have influence in American elections. It is clear that tho majority of Amelicans and politicians support the limiting of foreign in{luence in American elections because it has beeri illegal since 2002 (*ABA Legal Fact Check: When Is It Illegal for Foreign Nationals to Influence U.S. lL Elections?'). AIso, many are wonied that Citizens United wiil, "open rhe floodgates for special interests-including foreign corporations-to spend without limit in our eiections" (qtd. ir' l"j Doyie). Citizens United allowed tbr the crealion of super PACs that do not have to disciose their donors and this wofiies many that foreign nationals may be donating to them without the public or govemment knowing. A prime example of this is American Pacific Inlemational Capital, an American compaay that is orined by two Chinese nationals wirich gave $1.3 million to supet I + PACs (Schwarz and Lee). Ellen Weintraub also points out that "Individual foreigners are barred from spending to sway elections" (Weintraub). But if colporations are just large groups ofpeople If and get their rights to speak from their sharehoiders then horv can the colpotatiols contribute if it is illegal f,or some oftheit shareholders to eontribute to political causes in the United States. By li Krivitz 4 Krivitz 5 giving all corporations the right to donate to political causes, Citizens United may allow foreign nationals to have influence in American elections despite the opposition ofthe American people Citizens United should be overturned because it interferes with the govemments ability to protect elections and does not infiinge on the Constitution. In the ruling ofthe Citizens United Supreme Court case, the judges ruled that restricting corporate and union spending on political campaigns infringes on the first amendment (Kairys). It is a valid argument to try and defend L b constitutional rights, but many argue that limiting the spending ofcorporations does not infringe on the First Amendment because norvhere in the constitution does it say that corporations are guaranteed rights. Even ifthese laws did infringe on the rights of corporations, many Americans believe that upholding democracy and fair elections is more important than protecting the rights ofcorporations. This can tre seen by &e fact that 78 percent of Americans think that Citizens United should be overturned (Pnce 416). By overtuming Citizens United, elections would I Z becorre more thir and regular people would have their voices restored in elections. Additionally. most shareholders do not have the power to control the speech ofthe corporation so why should their right to speak be extended to the corporation if they cannot even speak in the corporalion (Joo 346). Considering this it is clear that shareholders should not extend their personal rights to [' I the corporation because of their conflict of interest and limited power. The Citizens United decision should also be overtumed because it harbors corruption undermines democracy, and sways elections in favor of the rich. Comrption qeates distrust in the govemmerrt and damages democracy. Despite this, there are many ways for companies to legally bribe politicians, the government cannot regulate this because of Citizens United (Bentley). Many poiiticians are offered shares ofan initial public offering by a company whicn I t are not available to the general public, these shares are almost guaranteed to go up in value and is Krivitz 6 a clear example of corruption (May). Even ifpoliticat spending had zero influence over L elections, it would sti11 be important to ov€rtum Citizens United so that this corruplion could be slopped. Secondly, even though it is important for Americans to be well inl'ormed when voting, Citizens United allorvs corporations to spend their vast sums ofmoney on eiections and prevents a "meritocracy ofideas" because it causes ideas to dominate by money spent and not merit (Bentley). Even though there are some examples ofelections where the candidate who spends 2 I more loses, it is clear that money spent on elections does have an impact and can also sway.the decisions of currently elected politicians, damaging democracy even further. Additionally, if corporations argue that their political spending does not influence elections, then why would they spend so much money on elections for no gain. Citizens United also hurts small businesses and stifles competition because it allows large corporations to have an unfair advantage by iobbying politicians in their favor, therefore, hurting many businesses for the benefit ofa few ("Granting Corporations Bill of Rights Protections Is Not "Pro-business"). In summary, the Citizens United Z Z decision benefits a fet' while hu$ing many, allows corporations to have undue influence over elections, and harbors con'uption that damages the United States. Despite the faat that many corporations and proponents of Citizens United argue Citizens United infringes on the first amendment and does not affect elections. It is clearly shown that it hurts regular Americans, damages democracy, harbors comrption and hurt business while also not infringing on the Constitution. Even though corporations claim that Citizens Uflited protects their rights, overtuming it would clearly protect the rights ofregular citizens and American democracy. Fixing this issue is vitally impofiant to help restore democracy and trust in the govemrnent. This case is a good exarnple of why maay lose rust or faith in the govemraeat and it is paramount that the govemment ovelturns this case to restore trust and benefit America- l{:jryitz'1 Works Cited "ABA Legal Fact Check: When Is It IIegal for Foreign Nationals to Influence U_S. Elections.l,, Law & Crinte. American Bar Association. 3l .Ian. 201g. Web. 2g Nov- 2019. Bentley, Nick. "Mrat Is Citiz_ens United?: An Introductio n), Reclaim Defiocraey!. 23 Jan. 2A16. Web.28 Nov.2019. Bowie, Niktrlas. "Corporate Personhood v. Corporate Statehoorl.., Hurvartl Law Reviev,. Huvard University. 10 May 2019. Web. 28 Nov. 2019. f)oyle. Kenneth P. "Clampaign Finance Reform Is Still Necessary After the Citiz.ens United Ruling." Opposing Vieutpaints (ZAl0): N. pag. Gale In Contexr: Opposing trtiewpoints. Web.I i Sept. 2019. "Grantiug Corporations Bill of Rights Protections Is Not .pro-Business.',, AMIBA.5 lan 20lZ. Web. 28 Nov.2019. Joo" Thomas W. "Corporate speech & the rights of others.,' Constitutionql Commentar.y {2015): p. 335-60. Gale In Conrext: Opposing Viewpoints. Web. l1 Sepr. 2019. Kairys, David. "The Citi:zens United Decision 'fhat Supports Super pAC Spending Is Flawed., Super P:lCs (2014): N. pag. Gale In Context: {)pposing yiewpoints. Web. 17 Oct. 2019. Koerth. Maggie. "How Money Aflects Elections.,' FiteThirtyEight FiveThirtyEight. l0 Sept. 2018, Web.22 Nov. 2019. Krivilz I May, Matthew. "Review: Throw Them All Out by Peter Schweizer;' Awerican Thinker. 17 Dec. 201 L Web.28 Nov.2019. Price, Tom. "Campaign Financ e;' CQ Researcher 6 QAl6):409-32. CQ Researcher. Web. 11 Sept.2019. Schrvarz, Jon, and Lee Fang. "Three Patirs Citizens United Created for Foreign Moaey to Pour Into U.S. Elections." The Intercept.3 Aug. 2016. Web.22 Nov.2019. Simpson, Steve. "Citizens United and the Battle for Free Speech in America." Civil Liberties (2013): N. pag. Gale ln Context: Oppastng Viewpoints. Web- 11 Sept. 2019. Smith, Bradley A. "Campaign Finance and Free Speech: Finding the Radicaiism in Citizens United V. Fec;' Harvard Jotrnal of Law & Public Policy 41.1 (2018): 139-151. EBSCOhost. Web. 19 Sept. 2019. lMeintraub, El1en L. "Taking cn Citizens United." New York Times 30 Mar.2016. ProQuest- Web.2i Sept.2019. Argument Research Paper Guidelines Outline Draft Workshop (bring two copies of an outline draft for your paper) and Main Idea Statement Workshop: Fri Apr 23 The Argument Research Paper should contain enough of the objective information that was covered in the Informative paper for the audience to understand the argument analysis that is presented in it. It will also contain a point by point analysis of the pro and con arguments regarding what should be done to solve the problem/issue, weigh out the pros and cons of the major points of disagreement between the parties involved, and utilize Toulmin schema to present the argument(s). Unlike the Informative paper, the Argument paper should take a position or stance on the debate, make claims supported by evidence from your research, and address opposing arguments. All opposing views to your own must be addressed and either disputed or conceded, as well as present your own argument. ALL MATERIAL MUST BE SUBMITTED IN A LARGE (9 x 12) ENVELOPE(S) IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER (no papers will be accepted in folders): 1. Final draft of research paper (stapled together) including the following: *Properly formatted title page *Properly formatted combination outline, with a thesis at the top and complete topic sentences *Properly formatted paper body *Properly formatted Works Cited page 2. Photocopies of all original source material, with all summarized, paraphrased, or directly quoted material highlighted and numbered by hand in the right margin with the number that corresponds to its place in your paper. *Full copies of articles must be provided *Copies of full articles or essays from anthologies, with front & back of title page *Copies of pages from books used, with front & back of title page *Each source copy set stapled together individually *Source copies put (roughly) in numerical order from top to bottom 3. All notes used in research, paper organization, and drafting of paper ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: *MLA format throughout *Body of paper a MINIMUM of 4 and a MAXIMUM of 6 pages, 12 point Times/Times New Roman font, typed, double-spaced, 1-in. margins on all sides *Works Cited page listing AT LEAST 15 different sources. An anthology is a single source; CQ Researcher is a single source). Be sure that all information that is summarized, paraphrased, or directly quoted is properly attributed and cited in paper, that all sources referred to in the paper are listed on the Works Cited page, and that all entries listed on the Works Cited page are referenced in the paper. *Parenthetical citations (in parentheses, in body of paper) must be in proper MLA format with no more than 20% coming from any one source or source type. JB Waters 11/09