query: Politicians should be able to make difficult decisions without fear that selecting one option will lead to their incarceration.  By the most popular definition, a state is the entity with the monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a defined territory. Politicians, as the government of that state, necessarily wield the institutions of that state force. This results in the tremendous responsibility of deciding when the overwhelming power of the state is exercised. This pertains to a variety of areas, such as police action against civil unrest, the interrogation of both alleged and convicted terrorists, and economic policies that subsidize industries with state resources. While it is certainly possible to brazenly abuse this power, in many cases politicians are presented with options which are, if at all illegal, marginally so, and made with the good faith interest of the nation at heart. There are even conceivable situations in which a politician may exercise options that are clearly illegal but serve an overwhelming state interest; consider an illegal raid on a private building in order to prevent a nuclear bomb from going off. While documented instances of policy-makers choosing not to act for a particular reason are rare, several senior CIA officials stated that they had become risk averse merely because the idea of prosecuting officials who made security policy had entered the public discourse. [1] We ought to place politicians in a situation where the only factor in their decision-making process is what serves the public interest, rather than having to weigh what they consider to be the right action against the chance it will lead to their incarceration. Attempting to avoid this through a limited system which allowed for the prosecution of apolitical crimes but immunity for political decisions would fail to accomplish the goals of prosecution of politicians, which is primarily to protect against political abuses of state power which threaten the rights of the citizenry.  [1] Crawford, Robert, ‘Torture and the Ideology of National Security’ Global Dialogue, Vol.12 No.1, Winter/Spring 2010, (“A Risk-Averse CIA” subsection)  [Accessed 22 September 2011]

positive: eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity No one doubts that politicians have to make morally difficult decisions, where sometimes every option is unpleasant. However, no one wants politicians to have an unrestricted ability to make ethical questionable decisions. That is exactly what immunity would deliver them. A politician who knows that they cannot be touched is incentivized and licensed to be much more brazen in their behavior when in office, and we want a bulwark against unrestricted rule-breaking. A state of affairs wherein politicians can sometimes be prosecuted creates the ideal amount of disincentive for politicians to break rules; they will do so only when there is a pressing need, and only to a moderate degree. Because of the plausible justifications for such acts, politicians need not fear prosecution in the overwhelming majority of cases. For instance, no official from either the UK or USA has been actually indicted with regard to highly-legally-dubious programs to torture detainees [1] [2] . Moreover, politicians are seldom prosecuted anyway, especially because they tend to belong to socioeconomic strata that punished less or not all compared to the rest of society. There is no legitimate need to give them more protection.  [1] Ambinder, Marc, ‘CIA Officers Granted Immunity from Torture Prosecution’, The Atlantic, 16 April 2009,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]  [2] Human Rights Education Association, ‘Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment’, hrea.org,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]

negative: eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity Giving politicians’ immunity from prosecution allows them to focus on performing their duties  The premier reason that most states, even those that allow for the prosecution of politicians, abstain from prosecuting them while they hold office is that being a politician is a job that requires one’s undivided attention. Especially for the holders of prominent national-level offices, writing legislation, responding to crises under one’s purview, consulting one’s constituents, and engaging in campaign work often lead to politicians working an upwards of 12 hour day, every day. To expect politicians cope with all of these concerns will simultaneously constructing a defense against pending charges would be to abandon all hope of them serving their constituents effectively. We are rightly aggravated when politicians take extensive vacations or other extracurricular forays. [1] Being under indictment not only consumes even more of a politician’s time; the stress it causes will inevitably seep into what remaining time they do allocating to fulfilling their duties, further hindering their performance. The impeachment proceedings for Bill Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice were so intensive that they took tremendous resources away from not only the president himself, but all branches of the federal government for several months [2] , amidst serious domestic and foreign policy concerns such as the ongoing war in Kosovo.  [1] Condon, George E. Jr., ‘The Long History of Criticizing Presidential Vacations’ The Atlantic, 18 August 2011,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]  [2] Linder, Douglas O., ‘The Impeachment Trial of President William Clinton’, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY (UMKC) SCHOOL OF LAW, 2005,  [Accessed September 19, 2011]

negative: eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity In the event of major abuses of power it should be the public that holds politicians to account.  The obvious benefit to prosecuting politicians is that it punishes – and thereby deters – corruption by politicians. However, this benefit can be achieved through other means. Firstly, many western liberal democracies have one form or another of removing a politician from office in the midst of their term, such as impeachment in the American system or a vote of no confidence against the government in the Westminster system. While defenders of immunity oppose impeachment as contrary to the principles outlined above (because of the effect that it may have on political duties), this is an option that remains in cases of gross misconduct. If the political will cannot be mobilized to remove a sitting politician, they are held accountable by the electorate to whom they must answer in the next election, and who will likely punish blatant misuse of political power. Even if the individual politician has reached a limit on their term of office, or does not seek reelection, they are still held in check by the damage that will be done to their party in the event of major misconduct on their part. Finally, most politicians are significantly concerned about their legacy, which is tarnished significantly by corruption even if they are never held legally accountable for it. While Nixon received a full pardon from his success, [1] his name has become synonymous with criminality and scandal: a fate most politicians wish to avoid.  [1] Ford, Gerald R., Proclamation 4311, 8 September 1974,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]

negative: The focus of politics and politicians should be on policy  Delving into the private lives of politicians does nothing to improve citizens’ understanding of who represents them except to show that a certain politician may have issues in his or her private life that is unsavoury, or slightly hypocritical. But that focus on hypocrisy is itself legislatively meaningless. If voters select a representative who then votes in accordance with their wishes, then he is doing his duty, irrespective of how he lives his own life. Thus when Newt Gingrich, for example, as Speaker of the House sought to increase federal recognitions and incentives towards stable, monogamous relationships, while at the same time leading an extramarital affair of his own, he was not acting in bad faith with the voters who backed him, but doing their will, which is the duty of a politician at base. [1] Furthermore, when personal lives are open to attack, candidates can focus their energies on denigrating their opponents instead of addressing the issues that matter. The result is worse elections, as voters are unable to distinguish candidates effectively on the basis of policy, but are rather pushed to make decisions on the basis of personal lives, which results in decision-making that is less thoroughly in their interest.  [1] Kurtz, K. “Legislatures and Citizens: Communication Between Representatives and their Constituents”. National Conference of State Legislatures. December 1997,

negative: Representative Democracy Enables Rule by Elites  Representative democracy is less legitimate because it empowers unelected elites. Representative democracy is systematically biased against ordinary people, particularly poor people. Unelected elites like wealthy businessmen, trade union leaders, civil servants, party officials and media proprietors are able to bypass the democratic process and exert direct pressure on elected politicians. This happens because decisions are made behind closed doors by individual politicians who can be easily bullied or bought out. This allows elites to effectively wield public power even when they are not elected themselves. If decisions were made more directly by the people there would be less scope for elites to manipulate the process by simply appealing to a politician’s self-interest. Elite influence is a systematic problem because it is self-reinforcing: elites lobby for laws to preserve their own power and disempower the public. A good example of this is Rupert Murdoch’s behind-the-scenes lobbying for the repeal of regulations preventing him from dominating the media market. [1] Considering that at any past time in the human history the conditions of equality in labour division, education and technological tools were not as favourable as nowadays in terms of allowing citizen political involvement, a more participatory political decision-making must be now taken into account. [2] A clear example is the Iceland's "wiki constitution" (2011). [3] Then, although the classic criticism against direct democracy formulas based on the premise that size creates problrms –referring to the difficulties to shape participatory citizen deliberation in our enormous current nation-states– may still be true, cultural, social and technological conditions for participation have become much more favourable.  [1] Toynbee, P. (8 July 2011). “The game has changed. The emperor has lost his clothes”, The Guardian.   [2] Resnick, P. (1997). Twenty-first Century Democracy. Montreal & Kingston; London; Buffalo: McGill-Queen's University Press. p. 84  [3] Siddique, H. (9 June 2011). “Mob rule: Iceland crowdsources its next constitution”, The Guardian.

negative: Limiting the rights of corporate persons would harm a wide range of organisations and limit the freedom of natural persons.  Public speech and exchanges of ideas lie at the root of political and social decision making in liberal democracies. Without a guarantee that expression will remain free and protected from government interference, the other rights discussed in the first amendment to the United States constitution would become impossible to exercise. The discussion and pursuit of religious ideas would be obstructed. The ability to challenge the actions and decisions of an incumbent government would be put at risk too [1] . Even the reporting of verifiably true information about the affairs of the state and its citizens- freedom of the press- would become hazardous without the toleration for inaccuracies and the concept of public interest that principled freedom of speech gives rise to.  In order for a right to be meaningful, however, it must be possible to exercise that right effectively. A right to free movement would be meaningless if the government that guaranteed it was unable to keep its citizens safe within their communities. Similarly, free speech in liberal democracies cannot be exercised effectively without the ability to disseminate speech among a large audience, and without the ability to co-operate with others in order to do so. Isolated oratory and passing on news by word-of-mouth are not effective ways of handling information.  Corporate entities have emerged as the most effective method of pooling individual resources in order to take full advantage of the benefits and freedoms of free speech and dialogue [2] . As the columnist George Will observes, in the USA “newspapers, magazines, broadcasting entities, online journalism operations- and most religious institutions- are corporate entities.” [3] The proposition side advocates depriving these bodies of many of their rights, simply because they benefit from a legal fiction that- itself- is designed to make co-operation and resources sharing among like-minded individuals- natural persons- more effective.  The difficulties presented by corporate campaigning would allow the state to restrain the publication of almost any coherent, publicly distributed form of speech that was critical of politicians or their parties. The legal scholar Eugene Volokh has noted that Jim McGovern's People's Rights Amendment, which most closely resembles the proposition's mechanism, would give legislators fiat to restrict the content of newspapers by defining it as “corporate” speech that did not benefit from the same set of rights as the expressed opinions of natural persons. This is a wider application of the rule that brought Citizens United and the BCRA before the supreme court [4] . As set out in the introductory case study, the BCRA allowed the Federal Election Commission to claim that a movie (produced by a right-wing PAC) critical of democratic presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton represented a misuse of private funds that could potentially give an unfair advantage to Clinton's opponents.  Under the sections of the BCRA that were struck down in 2012, and under the new laws that proposition wish to create, it would be possible for legislative bodies and the judiciary to target any and all forms of political communication produced by corporate entities without having to consider the objectives of those communications. In plainer terms, the state's power to ban and censor free speech would not be limited to statements made to lobby an electorate or to campaign in favour of a particular politician or policy.  Citizens who wished to avoid being caught up in this law would be obliged to share resources via archaic legal structures such as partnerships and co-operative agreements. Assemblies of citizens could be exposed to a great deal of financial risk in such a situation. Each member of a partnership would be forced to bear the debts and legal liabilities of the entire partnership. In addition, agreements concluded by the partnership would require the consent of every partner. This is a minor inconvenience when a partnership consists of two or three people, but it would be an impossible demand to fulfil for an organisation such as the communications giant ComCast, which has a share volume of 10.5 million (as of May 2012).  [1] “Taking a Scythe to the Bill of Rights”. Will, G F. The Washington Post, 05 May 2012.   [2] “Infant and corporate rights”. The Economist, 07 May 2012.   [3] “Taking a Scythe to the Bill of Rights”. Will, G F. The Washington Post, 05 May 2012.   [4] “The ‘People’s Rights Amendment’ and the media”. Volokh, E. The Volokh Conspiracy, 26 April 2012.

negative: The United States has an obligation to protect international stability due to its unique military strength.  The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is one of the lynchpins on which the current Western-led international political and diplomatic order is dependent.1,2 Just as any normal legal system requires laws that are predictable and enforceable, so too does the international system. The Non-Proliferation Treaty provides this level of consistency and control over states’ nuclear assets.  In particular, one of those key principles is the assumption that once a country enters a treaty it will abide by its terms. If a country can leave a treaty at will, it means that no policy can be made with any degree of predictability. States are not able to formulate plans for future policies and development strategies if analysts and politicians are prevented from making reliable predictions about neighbouring state’s behaviour, economic policies and territorial ambitions.  This is particularly important with treaties relating to armaments, and of vital importance when it comes to Nuclear Weapons, because other countries choose to participate in military alliances and actions based on such assumptions.  Historically, arms build-ups and wars have occurred when the Great Powers fail to uphold the international legal system – fail to regard it as binding and inherently valuable and consequential. For example Germany’s willingness to disregard Czechoslovakian sovereignty prior to World War II. For that reason the United States has a vested interest in upholding the principles of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This is because the US is the major beneficiary of the present international system, both economically and politically.  Economically, the major loser in any upheaval around the world is almost guaranteed to be the United States or its corporations. However, the political incentives for the USA to continue upholding the non-proliferation treaty- by force if necessary- are far greater. A failure on its part to act will not just lead to nuclear proliferation, but also undermine other treaties banning chemical weapons and guaranteeing human rights as nations’ realize they are only pieces of paper.  1. ‘The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons’, 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), 1 July 1968,   2. Kasprzyk, Nicholas, ‘Nuclear Non-proliferation and Regional Changing Strategic Balances: How Much Will Regional Proliferation Impinge Upon the Future of the NPT?’, in Krause, Joachim and Wenger, Andreas eds., Studies in Contemporary History and Security policy, 2001,

negative: Participatory forms of Democracy Can Restore Trust in Politics  Representative systems struggle to sustain popular trust, which is bad for democracy. Public trust in politics always tends to be dented by three specific features of representative systems. Firstly, the perception of elite influence over the political process is a largely unavoidable feature of electoral democracy because such elites are easily placed to manipulate politics, even if they do not actually do so. Secondly, the spotlight in representative democracy is on individual politicians (rather than on policies) and consequently exposing scandals and smearing the characters of politicians is an essential part of the political game: media coverage of politicians is largely hostile (particularly problematic if it diverts discussion from the merits and demerits of particular policies). A third feature of the system is that, since public opinion has no direct power, unpopular decisions don’t have to be properly justified. Governments often defy public opinion when they think a policy will pay off in the long run, and often they don’t really bother explaining why they are doing so (a good example of this is Gordon Brown’s signing of the Lisbon treaty in 2007). These three factors all tend to undermine trust in politics in representative systems. Trust is essential for democracy because without it people will not bother following politics or voting, leaving the door open for elites and aggressive minorities to wield undue influence. A clear example of this phenomenon is in the United States, where Christian fundamentalists – despite being a minority – wield enormous power. The reason for this is that turnout in American elections is very low, whilst fundamentalist Christians are politically very active and organised, allowing them huge influence.

negative: Collective Bargaining is Needed to Voice Opinion  Collective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve.  In this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue.  Specifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made.  In order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain. [1]  [1] “Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations.

negative: The private lives of politicians are a harmful distraction for the media  When the lives of politicians are fair game, they necessarily become a major target for journalists. Salacious gossip sells much better than more complicated stories about policy, so they are given pride of place. The result is the media wasting time and resources on pursuing stories that are ultimately generally useless in divining policy and progress in a society. The media is society’s watchdog, and its duty is to protect the people from untruths in policy and to shield them from wicked decisions. Focusing on the personal lives does nothing to serve the actual material interests of the people. Thus when the media reports on the private lives of politicians over the more meaty issues of the day, it abrogates its most fundamental duty to its citizens. The best example of this occurring is certainly the Lewinski affair in America. While it was deeply unfortunate that the president would use his power to solicit the sexual favours of an intern, the near maniacal fixation with which the media attended the story served to halt the process of government for many months. Bill Clinton spent much of his time and energy obfuscating and apologising for his private life, while the Congress dithered over who could be the most righteous in their opposition to the president. [1] The result was one of the most farcical standstills in the history of American governance. Absent the media reporting on this story and delving into the lives of those involved, America might well have been able to focus on the things that mattered.  [1] Gitlin, T. “The Clinton-Lewinsky Obsession: How the Press Made a Scandal of Itself”. The Washington Monthly. December 1998,

negative: mployment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is a necessary aspect of democracy  Collective bargaining is needed by people in any job. Within any firm there exist feedback structures that enable workers to communicate with managers and executive decision makers. However, there are some issues which affect workers significantly, but run against the principles of profit, or in this case the overall public good that the state seeks to serve.  In this situation, a collection of workers are required. This is primarily because if suggested changes go against public interest then a single worker requesting such a change is likely to be rejected. However, it is the indirect benefit to public interest through a workforce that is treated better that must also be considered. But indirect benefit can only truly occur if there are a large number of workers where said indirect benefit can accrue.  Specifically, indirect benefit includes the happiness of the workforce and thus the creation of a harder working workforce, as well as the prevention of brain drain of the workforce to other professions. When a single person is unhappy for example, the effect is minimal, however if this effect can be proved for a large number of people then an adjustment must be made.  In order for these ideas to be expressed, workers can either engage in a collective bargaining process with their employer, or take more drastic action such as strikes or protests to raise awareness of the problem. Given that the alternate option is vastly more disruptive, it seems prudent to allow people to do collectively bargain.1  “Importance of Collective Bargaining.” Industrial relations.

negative: global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks The use of the internet undermines the state by demonopolizing the use of force  Ever since the state rose to ascendancy over powerful internal actors, such as the nobility in a feudal system, the state has had a monopoly on the use of force. The state quickly became the only institution with the resources to maintain military forces and has become the only legitimate wielder of force. The internet however changes this. Cyber-attacks are often by individuals or groups who can carry out a cross border attack without the aid of their home country.  In 2011 CIA director Leon Panetta told Congress “when it comes to national security, I think this represents the battleground for the future. I've often said that I think the potential for the next Pearl Harbor could very well be a cyber-attack.” [1] If cyber-attacks are so important it stands to reason that the groups who are able to engage in such activities should be as limited as possible. While it is not always possible states try to make sure that the weapons of war for the most part remain in the hands of responsible actors. This should apply as much in cyberspace as elsewhere. While terrorist groups do exist – and are occasionally armed by states – for the most part they are seen by every government as being illegitimate.  [1] Serrano, Richard A., ‘U.S. intelligence officials concerned about cyber attack’, Los Angeles Times, 11 February 2011,

negative: Oil wealth flowing to politicians discourages democracy  The wealth from oil, or other natural resources, holds back democratization as a result of the “resources curse” or “paradox of plenty”. Resources provide money, and money is what is needed to run a security state. When money can come from natural resources there is little need to tax the people, instead it becomes a “rentier” economy where the dictator has resources to buy support without recourse to taxation. [1] It is essentially the opposite of the well-known idea ‘no taxation without representation’; if the money comes not from taxes but from oil what need is there for democracy?  This proposal takes away the option of having access to large oil revenues instead providing only a limited amount to the state rather than the pockets of the dictator. This prevents the buying of key groups such as the army and the policy who can be used to repress the population. It is not by chance that the only countries in the Arab Middle East that could be considered democracies before the Arab Spring never had oil; Jordan and Lebanon.  [1] Michel Chatelus and Yves Scehmeil, ‘Towards a New Political Economy of State Industrialisation in the Arab Middle East’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2 (May, 1984), pp.251-265, pp.261-262

negative: Private schools lack diversity  A private school is an institutionalised, artificial environment where the child will be exposed almost completely to children of their own socioeconomic background. This has two very interlinked problems.  1) One of the most important factors of a child’s education is to be exposed to a variety of races, religions, economies and abilities. This allows children to grow up to be more aware of these differences between people and more accepting of diversity as they get older. Yet private schools admission costs alone mean that students are from wealthy backgrounds, and this means they are largely exposed to other people from wealthy backgrounds. As we know, the majority of the people in the world are not wealthy and therefore these students have an extremely blinkered view of their country. Pakistan can be used as a prime example, where half of its children cannot read a full sentence at primary level and government spending on education has been cut from 2.5% to 1.5%. For those in private education and who usually go to university aboard they will never see or understand the situation of the majority in Pakistan and thus has a dysfunctional view of their country. (Landzettel 2011)  2) It is an inevitable feature of democracies that the rich have particular access to politicians and policy-makers. Furthermore, students from private education are much more likely to go into government or political roles. As mentioned above 66% of British politicians went to private school, and 44% of American politicians (against an 11% national average). While the rich don't have a need for state education because they can pursue education for their children from other sources, they have no motivation to lobby politicians on behalf of the education system and a perverse incentive to remove education from political agendas in favour of their preferred issues and legislation. Only by forcing the rich into the same situation as the poor can we expect to gain meaningful ground in terms of education reform, especially in terms of increased funding relative to national and municipal budgets. We cannot expect education will be a national priority until the entire nation has a vested interest in the good order of the system.

negative: The People’s Rights Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States constitution that attempts to address corporations’ increased freedom to engage in political campaigning. Referring to the First Amendment, section 2 of the PRA states “The word people, person or citizen as used in this constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State the United States or any foreign state.” [1]  The US Supreme Court justified striking down the BCRA by stating that “if the first amendment has any force, it prohibits congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” [2] However, the BCRA was never intended to limit US citizens' right to engage in effective and public political speech. The First Amendment to the constitution was not overridden by the BCRA. Newspapers remain effectively exempt from the powers granted to the FEC by the BCRA for this very reason, and, paraphrasing Justice Stevens’ opinion in Citizens United, it remains possible for the Supreme Court to challenge any attempt to legislate against freedom of the press – but such action has not yet been taken [3] .  Although ordinary citizens rely on corporate structures and company law to make the process of gathering and publishing publicly relevant information easier, corporate structures are also used to fulfil goals that are not related to the interests of the general public. Information released “in the public interest” is intended to be engaged with in a critical fashion. Voters receive information- even if it is biased- on the understanding that it represents an earnest commentary on the strengths and weaknesses and candidates' policies. Voters receive information during elections on the understanding that it relates directly to their interests and their welfare – to how they should vote.  The communications targeted by the BCRA, and by the proposition mechanism are those that seek to serve the interests of profit-led businesses by distorting political debate. The large raw materials business Pacific Lumber engaged in an abuse of direct democracy proceedings in Humboldt county, California, when it attempted to use a ballot initiative to remove the county's district attorney from office [4] . The attorney had brought a public suit [5] against Pacific Lumber after incompetent tree felling practices had caused flooding in the area. In plainer language, the corporation tried to use Humboldt County's electoral system to extricate itself from a court case brought by a state official. Such a bold and blatant move should not have been available to Pacific Lumber in the first place.  Balloting against Humboldt County's incumbent sheriff was conducted in a manner intended to mislead the public. The purpose underlying Pacific Lumber's actions was kept concealed from the citizens approached by the business's poll operatives. This runs contrary to the ideological objectives of ordinary political campaigning. Even inflexible ideologues that choose to hit the campaign trail will be acting to try and convince their audience that the normative content of their message has value and relevance for society as a whole. A campaign co-ordinated by a profit-led corporation will be geared only to serve the interests of that corporation.  Electioneering communications sponsored by corporations damage free speech by failing to contain any normative reasoning or content. They do not represent an honestly expressed view of the direction that society should take, of the policies that should be deployed to address flaws in society.  Far from limiting ordinary citizens’ access to the free speech protections that are a feature of liberal democracies, the proposition side are simply attempting to address an aspect of the on-going debate over the how best to protect the quality and vibrancy of free speech. It has always been necessary to ensure that free expression does not become a licence to exploit the credulous, but it is also important for democratic states to allow heterodox and unpopular ideas to be discussed as freely as those that receive widespread social approval. In this instance, legislation that was intended to achieve this objective in the USA has been exploited by corporations to use free expression to forward their own- very narrow- interests, usually under the guise of protecting others' essential freedoms and economic interests.  In cases such as this, where the marketplace of ideas has undergone a market failure, where legislation is being applied to scenarios that fall outside of the range of problems it was originally created to address, it is appropriate to reconsider the limits and purpose of freedom of expression. New legislation- including any proposed replacement for the BCRA- must take a case-specific approach to free speech issues due to the wide range of organisations that choose to define themselves as corporations. As discussed in the proposition side's substantive argument, the law must accord speech rights to corporations based on their stated goals, priorities and the groups whose interests they serve.  [1] “Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations…” Joint resolution, United States House of Representatives.   [2] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US 50.   [3] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US 50.   [4] “Humboldt DA fights to keep job”. San Francisco Chronicle, 28 February 2004.   [5] “Humboldt County D.A. sues logging firm, alleging fraudulent practices”. Los Angeles Times, 26 February 2003.

negative: If public bodies do not have an obligation to publish information, there will always be a temptation to find any available excuses to avoid transparency.  The primary advantage of putting the duty on government to publish, rather than on citizens to enquire is that it does not require the citizen to know what they need to know before they know it. Publication en masse allows researchers to investigate areas they think are likely to produce results, specialists to follow decisions relevant to their field and, also, raises the possibility of discovering things by chance. The experience of Wikipedia suggests that even very large quantities of data are relatively easy to mine as long as all the related documentation is available to the researcher – the frustration, by contrast, comes when one has only a single datum with no way of contextualising it. Any other situation, at the very least, panders to the interests of government to find any available excuse for not publishing anything that it is likely to find embarrassing and, virtually by definition, would be of most interest to the active citizen.  Knowing that accounts of discussions, records of payments, agreements with commercial bodies or other areas that might be of interest to citizens will be published with no recourse to ‘national security’ or ‘commercial sensitivity’ is likely to prevent abuses before they happen but will certainly ensure that they are discovered after the event [i] .  The publication of documents, in both Washington and London, relating to the build-up to war in Iraq is a prime example of where both governments used every available excuse to cover up the fact that that the advice they had been given showed that either they were misguided or had been deliberately lying [ii] . A presumption of publication would have prevented either of those from determining a matter of vital interest to the peoples of the UK, the US and, of course, Iraq. All three of those groups would have had access to the information were there a presumption of publication.  [i] The Public’s Right To Know. Article 19 Global Campaign for Freedom of Expression.  [ii] Whatreallyhappened.com has an overview of this an example of how politicians were misguided – wilfully or otherwise can be found in: Defector admits to lies that triggered the Iraq War. Martin Chulov and Helen Pidd. The Guardian. 15 February 2011.

negative: Citizens have a right to know who is being elected to represent them  Beyond the discussion of the balancing of the right to privacy, it is important to understand the nature of representatives as stand-ins for the citizens who elect them. In other words, politicians are surrogates. Their duty is to represent the people in public life across all issues and policies. [1] Yet it is impossible to ascertain the desires of the citizens on all issues in the course of an election campaign. Even harder is to understand political decision-making in a context that had not existed at the time of the election. For example, if a war was to begin suddenly in a country that had not expected any conflict and had not elected representatives on the basis of how they stood on fighting this war. But that is exactly why politicians are elected as much for who they are as what their avowed policy aims are. We elect politicians who we believe will act best under such changing conditions; the ‘3 am phone call’, how a candidate will react in a crisis, is often a major issue in U.S. Presidential elections and temperament is often the only way to judge this. [2] Mitt Romney as candidate in the 2012 election was widely considered to have lost out to Obama on this measure. [3] Understanding the personal lives of politicians allows voters to elect one who best represents them in the sense of being able to act in their place in a changing world. Thus it is critical for the good electoral decision-making that the right to privacy of politicians be infringed.  [1] Hughs, J. “Does the Public Really Have the Right to Know About Politicians’ Private Lives”. University of Phoenix Online. 27 June 2011,   [2] Fallows, James, “Mitt Romney Drops His 3 a.m. Phone Call”, the Atlantic, 12 September 2012,   [3] Drum, Kevin, “Obama Wins the 3 a.m. Phone Call Test”, Mother Jones, 14 October 2012,

negative: mployment tax politics government house would abolish all collective bargaining Collective bargaining is not a right  Whilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.  Unions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy.1 The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.  Further, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred.2  Shepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011,   Denholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011

negative: The longer a politician remains in office, the more entrenched his grip becomes, and the more likely he is to use his office to his personal advantage:  Power is highly intoxicating; it can corrupt even the most scrupled individual given enough exposure over time. For this reason, power should not be left in the hands of specific individuals for too long. When a politician is firmly entrenched, he may seek to enrich himself at the expense of the public. He may seek to shower benefices on family and allies in order to maintain and strengthen his powerful position. Without term limits legislators often become self-serving individuals, more interested in craving out personal power bases than with serving the people who elected them. Because legislators are so likely to be reelected, lobbyists and special interest groups find the lines of power in states' capitals largely predictable, and are thus able to buy the influence of the permanent power nexuses in the legislature with relative ease1. Term limits serve to limit the ability of individuals to put forward self-serving legislation and to retain power indefinitely 2. Instead, by maintaining term limits, legislators have only a limited time in power, which tends to shift their focus toward genuinely benefiting the public.  1 Bandow, Doug. 1995. "Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever". Cato Institute Policy Analysis. 2 Green, Eric. 2007. "Term Limits Help Prevent Dictatorships". America.gov.

negative: Term limits restore a concept of rotation in public office, and reestablish the concept of the citizen legislature:  It is gravely unfortunate that politics has become an accepted career path for citizens of democratic states. It is far better that participation in government be brief. To end politics as a lifetime sinecure, thereby making legislative service a leave of absence, rather than a means of permanently absconding from a productive career in the private sector, requires that there be term limits 1. Without term limits, the temptation to remain in office for life will keep people seeking reelection long after they have accomplished all the legislative good of which they are capable. It does not take long for legislators to become more occupied with their relationships with each other and with lobbyists, than with their constituents. Representative assemblies work best when they function as citizen legislatures, in which people who pursue careers other than politics enter the legislative forum for a brief time to do their country service, and then leave again to reenter society as private citizens2. Such citizen legislators who enter politics to make their mark and then leave are far more desirable than the career politicians of today who focus only on building their own power influence, rather than considering the people they were elected to represent. US states with 'citizen legislatures', where the state legislature is part time with short sessions so allowing its members to hold other jobs, were at the top of freedom indexes. New Hampshire was both the most minimal parliament and the state with most fiscal freedom according to the Ruger-Sorens Index.3 1 Will, George. 1993. Restoration: Congress, Term Limits, and the Restoration of Deliberative Democracy. New York: Free Press. 2 Bandow, Doug. 1995. "Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever". Cato Institute Policy Analysis. 3 Rugar, William and Sorens, Jason. 2011. "The Citizen Legislature: How Reasonable Limits on State Legislative Salaries, Staff and Session Lengths Keep Liberty Alive" Policy Brief, Goldwater Institute,

negative: Reporting generates a constant iteration of fear in the public, and precipitates a ratchet effect toward crime  Constant reporting on violent crime makes people more fearful. This not a deliberate effort on the part of the media to keep people afraid, but rather is a corrosive negative externality; violence sells, so media provides, resulting in the scaring of audiences. The result of the media’s reporting on violent crimes is a constant iteration of fear, which makes people wary of each other, and of the world. [1] Furthermore, such reporting creates a feeling in people of other individuals and groups most often reported as committing crimes as being “other” from themselves. For example, reporting on extensive crimes in inner-city areas in the United States has caused middle class suburbanites to develop wariness toward African-Americans, who are constantly reported in the media as criminals. This is socially destructive in the extreme. The heightened senses of insecurity people feel leads to vigilance in excess. This is bad for people’s rationality. All these problems yield very negative social consequences.  The constant reporting on violence leads to people demanding immediate law enforcement, and politicians quick to oblige, which leads to a ratchet effect, a precipitous increase in punishments for crimes. This results in a severe misallocation of resources; first in terms of irrationally high spending on extra policing, and second in terms of the excessive allocation of resources and authority to the state to solve the problems of crime through force. This is observed, for example, in the enactment of the PATRIOT Act, which was acclaimed in a state of fear after 9/11, and which gave extensive, even draconian powers to the state in the name of security. The media fuels this hysteria. Without its influence, cooler heads can prevail. The end result of all this is a treating of symptoms rather than the cause. Putting more police on the streets, and getting tough on crime fail to address underlying issues, which are often poverty and the social ills arising from it. [2] Citizens and governments should instead face the actual problem instead of choosing flashy option.  [1] Rogers, Tom. “Towards an Analytical Framework on Fear of Crime and its Relationship to Print Media Reportage”. University of Sheffield.   [2] Amy, Douglas J. “More Government Does Not Mean Less Freedom”. Government is Good. 2007,

negative: europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy The EU is indeed under NATO’s and US’s military umbrella, and while terrorist attacks on EU’s territory have certainly heightened levels of anxiety, its ‘foreign policy’ is still based on an inclusive approach: bring threatening nations under your economic and political umbrella and provide them with incentives to collaborate. Academics such as Allen David and Michael Smith have argued that the EU’s ‘foreign policy’ seeks to go beyond the nation state and thus treats what lies outside its borders not necessarily as ‘foreign’ and ‘threatening’ but rather as a different system.1 The EU provides a subsystem of international relations within a larger global system, in which threats and fears subside as a result of economic and military integration. The most pressing challenge is to learn how to extend this system beyond the current borders of the EU, keeping in mind that the accession process is a mechanism not to be abused.  1. Allen, David, and Smith, Michael, 'External Policy Developments', Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol 43. (2005) pp.109-26 accessed 1/8/11

negative: It is fashionable to exaggerate the pervasiveness of the “negative campaign environment”, but democracy still functions perfectly well in almost all liberal states. People still vote when their vote will matter the most. Voter turnout in the 2008 [i] American presidential election and in the 2010 UK general election [ii] was significantly higher than in previous years. Both of these elections took place against the backdrop of a rapidly evolving financial crisis. Both elections focussed on candidates promoting a wide range of new and radical ideas. Both elections produced a preponderance of attack adverts that focussed on the content of policies, ideologies and the reliability of evidence showing the candidates’ previous policy success. With one or two over-reported exceptions, the politics of the personal was largely absent in both the US and the UK.  Moreover, liberal-democratic ideals promote openness and transparency within both the government and the political class. Voters are entitled to information on a candidate’s “down-side”; the opponents of a candidate are obviously well placed to voice such concerns. Journalists risk accusations of bias if they attempt to publish details of an individual politician’s failings in office. However, when these issues are raised by an opponent of that politician, the press is placed in a position that allows it to act as a disinterested assessor of that claim. Far from simply reproducing negative messages, as side proposition claim that they do, the mass media frequently conduct detailed investigations into the content of attack adverts. “Ad watch” reports of this type are now a common feature of US election coverage [iii] . The interrelationship of politicians and the press enhances the transparency of the campaigning process.  Proposition have unrealistic expectations when it comes to assessing the efficacy of campaign adverts. It is true that an attack advert will not be able to convert a supporter of its target into a supporter of the attacking politician. However, this is equally true of positive campaign adverts. The transfer of political loyalties will always be a long, drawn out process that on-spec campaigning cannot hope to influence [iv] .  The resolution would compromise the efficiency of political campaigning by obliging candidates to over emphasise the role of ideology and policy in campaign literature, rather than their qualities as a decision maker.  Moreover, the resolution would encourage politicians to “over-promise” in manifestos and campaign literature. If the only means by which contenders in an election can distinguish themselves is by pledging to initiate more new policies, taxes, tax cuts, projects or consultations than their opponents, the workloads of successful candidates will become artificially inflated and unmanageable.  In short, politicians running for office will be incentivised to create ever more outlandish manifesto pledges and policy initiatives. Due to term-limits, organisational inefficiencies and unpredictable, emergent problems, very few of these promises will be realised. The consequence of this situation is obvious. When politicians fail to keep their promises, citizens will lose confidence in the effectiveness of the state.  There is greater utility in encouraging politicians to be cautious and conservative when campaigning. If an election is dominated by fantastical and elaborate schemes that are left unfulfilled, the likely result will be chronic apathy and disengagement among the electorate – precisely the outcome that proposition wish to avoid.  [i] Voter turnout in presidential elections: 1828-2008, The American Presidency Project,   [ii] The Electoral Commission,   [iii] Winning, but losing. How negative campaigns shrink electorate, manipulate news media. Ansolabhere, S. Iyengar, S. Stamford University.   [iv] Effectiveness of negative political advertising. Won Ho Chang and others. 1998. Ohio University, Scripps School of Journalism.

negative: Term limits tend to increase partisanship between political parties and factions:  Term limits on legislators serve to exacerbate partisan tensions between political parties1. This is due to several causes. First, the increased iteration of primary elections, caused by politicians being forced out of office by term limits, in which there tends to be low voter turnout, and higher voter apathy when they happen to regularly. This leads to the selection of more conservative candidates from the right, and more radical candidates from the left. These more opposed groups forming large portions of political parties' representation will lead to more tension in the legislature. Second, newly elected politicians are often more likely to readily take the party whip when they enter the legislature. These results in more disciplined voting, which restricts the ability of moderates on either side to build consensuses on legislation. Third, the ability to build consensus and support from other parties relies on experience and deft political acumen, which are usually garnered through lengthy participation in the legislative process.2 Term limits exclude many skilled politicians from being able to use their expertise in the building of such consensus efforts. Fourth, concerns for their post-legislative career can lead to greater partisanship from retiring legislators. This is due to their need to court appointments to positions at party-affiliated, or party-leaning, think tanks, and on corporate boards favorable to their party. All of these factors lead to a less cooperative legislature when term limits are instituted. 1 Marcus, Andrew. 2010. "Dodd and Other 'Retiring' Democrats Show Why Term Limitsare a Bad Idea". Big Government. 2 Kouser, Thad. 2004. Term Limits and the Dismantling of State Legislative Professionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

negative: Negative campaigning leads to negative governance.  Information on demographics, on taxation rates, on the state’s finances are made publically available precisely so that voters can arrive at reasoned, rational and nuanced decisions as to whom they should vote for. Governments are judged by evidence of the efficacy of their policies.  Analysis conducted by political scientists William Riker, Michael Davis and Michael Ferrantino [i] show that where negative campaigning is permitted, even politicians with no history of running attack campaigns will adopt aggressive electoral tactics. If a politician wins on a positive platform- by promising to implement new policies and reform existing ones- then his chances of re-election will be affected by his success or failure in bringing about those changes. The electorate are able to test and assess a politician’s positive claims. However, if a politician campaigns on a negative platform, portraying his opponent as incompetent or his policies as damaging, an electoral victory will make such claims unassailable. The attacking politician will be free to state that his election has prevented the dire consequences he warned from coming about. Non one will be able to prove otherwise, notwithstanding the spluttering of his defeated opponent.  By portraying opponents as reckless or dangerously radical, an attacking politician immediately sets himself up as the lesser of two evils. This may do little to convert undecided voters, but it still allows the successful candidate to take credit for “protecting” the electorate. Although this strategy may be the easiest to implement, it does not fit with the ideal of critical and ideological transparency that characterises contemporary liberal states.  The increasing amount of information produced by governments, think tanks, universities and political parties is intended to make the state- and the electorate- more responsive to the success and failure of particular policies. By closing the gap between the proposal of a policy, its implementation and the indicators of its success, information-led democracy supposedly makes governance and democratic choice more efficient. Negative campaigning circumvents this feedback system. It distorts ideas, by misrepresenting them and rendering them unacceptable, before any objective assessment of their merits has taken place.  Moreover, negative portrayals of candidates and policies, as noted above, are more likely to dominate media coverage, than the sober, balanced information produced by academics and analysts. This line of argument also leads to equally damaging distortion of the attacking candidate’s platform and proposals. By diverting resources to negative campaigning and attack adverts, candidates have less time and money to expend on the creation of positive policies. Indeed, the fewer testable claims that a candidate makes about his own policies, the less likely he is to be subject to effective criticism by opponents or the electorate if he takes up office.  Negative campaigning incentivises a distant, evasive, conservative approach to government. It creates an adversarial relationship between politicians and those wishing to gather and disseminate information about the effects of policies – academics, political analysts and engaged citizens.  [i] The Rational Attacker in Russia? Negative Campaigning in Russian Presidential Elections. Sigelman, L and Shiraev, E. New York University, April 2001.

negative: Representative Democracy Lets People Get On with their Lives  People should be free to get on with their private lives, but they can’t do that if they’re expected to also be their own government. The reason why we delegate powers to politicians is that we want to have a say in government and still be free to get on with our lives. The business of government is tremendously complex and most people just don’t care about having total control over the details of policy – they just want the power to kick out governments that are no good. Think about it: how many people actually have time, on top of all the other things they have to do, to attend weekly meetings and committees, research technical policy details to decide which policy they will support and then go out and vote on a dozen issues every week? You’ll notice that all the ancient direct democracies – like ancient Athens – were societies in which there were more slaves than citizens. It is only because the slaves did all the work that the citizens were free to spend their time playing politics. The key point is, under the status quo, people who deeply care about politics can get involved in politics – they can join a party, write to politicians, canvass for issues etc – and the people who don’t care about politics that much but still have an opinion are free to vote and then get on with their lives. But under a more direct democracy people have to choose between devoting half of their lives to politics or losing all possible influence over the curse of the decision-making. It’s not right that ordinary citizens should be forced to choose between having any say in politics and having a private life. This makes the difference between the "liberty of the ancients" and the "liberty of the moderns". [1]  [1] Constant, B. (1816). The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns. See online at:

negative: The war in Afghanistan is necessary for US and NATO security  The timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan means withdrawing by the end of 2012, regardless of the security situation, and handing over the conflict against the Taliban and Al Qaida (which will almost certainly still be going on) to a largely Afghan force which is ill-prepared to handle the war on its own. This means that proponents of the timetable withdrawal must support pulling NATO forces out of Afghanistan even if the war is going badly at the end of 2012 and it is clear that the withdrawal will benefit the Taliban and Al Qaeda on the battlefield. "Afghan forces simply do not currently have the capacity to do the protecting themselves at this point and, given the challenges of building up new institutions in Afghanistan after decades of war, will not necessarily have the ability until by the end of 2012.” US and NATO forces are needed to mentor and partner with Afghans as they build up an army and police force largely from scratch. Withdrawing before this task is completed adds up to a prescription for a drying up of intelligence and a Taliban victory. [1]  If the Taliban were thus to come to power in Afghanistan after the timetabled withdrawal, al-Qaeda would not be far behind. The USA's top nemesis would be able to salvage a victory in the very place from which it launched the 9/11 attacks eight years ago. Al-Qaeda would have its favourite bases and sanctuaries back, as well as a major propaganda win. [2]  This defeat for the West in Afghanistan would embolden its opponents not just in Pakistan, but all around the world, leaving it open to more attacks. [3]  The West has a security interest in preventing the region from slipping into a maelstrom of conflict. Pakistan, with 170m people and nuclear weapons, is vulnerable to the Taliban’s potent mixture of ethnic-Pushtun nationalism and extremist Islam, as its state power is tenuous. Anarchy in Afghanistan, or a Taliban restoration, would leave it prey to permanent cross-border instability. [4]  Therefore success in Afghanistan is key to the security in Pakistan. The US has even more reasons to care about the security of Pakistan when the India-Pakistan conflict is considered, especially as both sides of this have nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan have come within a hair’s breadth from nuclear conflict twice over Kashmir. If Pakistan were to fall apart, it would potentially leave nuclear weapons and a large military in the hands of extremist Muslim groups, which could lead to a regional war with India. It is a compelling and vital American interest to prevent nuclear conflict in South Asia—which makes “fixing” Afghanistan in some way also a vital American interest, even if this means keeping the troops there past the timetabled withdrawal. [5]  The War on Terror cannot be won if the US and NATO pull out of Afghanistan and rely more simply on offshore military resources. During the 1990s, when the US tried to go after Osama bin Laden without access to nearby bases by using ships based in the Indian Ocean, the two- to four-hour flight times of drones and cruise missiles operating off such ships made prompt action to real-time intelligence impractical. [6]  Since 1979, the US has been involved in a long, complex conflict against Islamic extremism. It has fought this ideology in many ways in many places, and it is uncertain now how this conflict will evolve. However the US should understand that the conflict is unavoidable and that when extremism pushes, it is in the US and NATO'S long-term interests to push back — and that eventually, if they do so, extremism will wither. [7]  The timetabled withdrawal from Afghanistan could mean withdrawing before this struggle has been won, and handing a base for exporting terrorism to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Security comes before other state interests, largely because the rights of all citizens depend on their security first, and so the security dimension here is key. Therefore, in order to protect the security of the US and other NATO countries, the timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan should be abandoned, and the troops should remain there until the job is done.  [1] Bruce Riedel, Bruce and O'Hanlon, Michael. "Why we can't go small in Afghanistan". USA Today. September 4, 2009   [2] ibid  [3] The Economist. "Obama's War". 15 October 2009.   [4] ibid  [5] Foust, Joshua. "The Case for Afghanistan: Strategic Considerations". Registan. 27 August 2009.   [6] Bruce Riedel, Bruce and O'Hanlon, Michael. "Why we can't go small in Afghanistan". USA Today. September 4, 2009   [7] Brooks, David. "The Afghan Imperative". New York Times. 24 September 2009.

negative: : Opinion polls are harmful to the democratic process because they stifle debate  In democratic nations public opinion matters as it is the public who ultimately decides who wins office and opinion polls measure that opinion. As a result politicians have become obsessed with the shifting whims of public opinion upon which the media focuses forcing politicians also focus on popular opinion even between elections. Since the media carries the news, the active use of opinion polls by the media drives the policy agenda. Lack of information on critical issues is likely to result as politicians focus only on areas where the opinion polls highlight.  Democracy is also harmed by the publication of opinion polls as subsequent citizen voter behaviour can be influenced. When , for example, an opinion poll portrays a huge majority for a certain subject, or for a particular party, its opponents might be less vocal since they feel “outnumbered” or that decisions have already been made thus diminishing democratic dialogue. Undecided voters may be apathetic toward the election process since they appear to be a foregone conclusion. The potential influence on voters choices is the reason the France forbids opinion polls shortly before an election. [1]  [1] Blocman, ‘Ban on Publishing Public Opinion Polls’, 1999,

negative: Open primaries will distract and confuse the majority of the electorate  Primary Elections do little more than provide a distraction to the political process. Instead of focusing on the political process for the maximum time possible between elections, politicians are constantly distracted by electioneering, not just to be re-elected but also to seek selection as their party’s candidate.  This may create a dangerous precedent of politics being little more than one constant election cycle, with decision being made to please constituents in order to win two elections. We see this the most in the US House of Representatives, where decisions influencing ‘pork-barrel’ spending are made with the main aim of keeping constituents happy in order to avoid primary defeat, to the detriment of government being more disposed to dysfunction. [1]  The constant election cycle can cause disillusionment with voters who fail to see tangible effects of what the politicians the elect do yet face constant electioneering. By only hosting general elections, a clear focus is provided for candidates and electorate alike, allowing for scrutiny to be based upon the actions of politicians and the party they represent against the opposition who seek to replace them.  [1] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, NationalJournal, 14 March 2009,

negative: Uses of free speech motivated by personal gain should still be protected.  The primary objection of the supporters of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to the decision taken in the Citizens United case seems to be that the objective of some corporations is usually the maximisation of the profits that their shareholders’ or owners receive [1] . Other considerations, we are told, take second place in the hierarchy of needs that corporations create for themselves [2] . Opponents of the Act and critics of the supreme court decision on Citizens United have attempt to claim that, because corporations’ behaviour is profit-led, corporate entities will use an unrestricted right to free speech to lie, cheat and manipulate the public [3] with the intention of boosting their returns. In other words, corporations will not use a right to free speech with the responsible aim of advocating for social change, but to enhance their own position as businesses or membership organisations.  In the sections of the amendments to the United States constitution that deal with the free speech rights of groups of individuals, no distinction is made between businesses, political parties, unions, or any other sort of gathering of citizens with similar interests and aims. As far as the core principles of the legal and governmental culture of the US are concerned [4] , all of these organisations are “corporate”.  The first amendment to the US constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment or religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therefore; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition to government for redress of grievances.” [5]  The right to peaceably assemble draws no distinction between peaceful assembly for political purposes and peaceful assembly for other reasons. Discrimination of this type would only have served to undermine the wide range of freedoms that the Bill of Rights guaranteed. After all, people obtain power through acting collectively. Any limit on the forms that collective action can take is also a limit on the ability of groups within society to respond to powerful actors by leveraging strength of numbers. “Corporation”- despite its contemporary connotations- remains a very broad and generic term. Even a large corporation is still directed by the approval and consent of its members. Restrictions on corporate speech represent of violation of the individual’s right to free speech  Irrespective of the content of what an individual has to say, of the statements that he makes in both the public and the private spheres, liberal democratic constitutions (not just the US constitution) impose very few restrictions on that individual’s right to speak. An individual that makes baseless statements that harm the social standing and reputation of an individual may be subject to civil proceedings, but is extremely rare for individuals to be censored or criminalised merely for expressing ideas or opinions. Even if the individual is lying, advocating extreme political ideologies or acting in his own interests while claiming to serve those of others, legal responses to his behaviour will be relatively limited and costly to deploy.  Corporations, as noted above, are often driven by acquisitive and self-interested objectives. Individuals are just as capable of being motivated by monetary gain, and are just as capable of concealing this motive as corporations. However objectionable the use of free speech by natural persons has been in the past, states have always encountered significant protest and dissent when they have attempted to control the content of individual expression. As discussed in a previous debatepedia article [6] , the possibility that an individual, natural or legal, might abuse free speech, or might be driven solely by profit, does not cancel out that individual's free speech rights.  [1] “Town by town, Vermont tackles corporate personhood”. The Guardian, 05 March 2012.   [2] “How corporations became ‘persons’”. uuworld.org, 01 May 2003.   [3] “Peculiar people”. The Economist, 24 March 2011.   [4] Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 21 January 2010. 558 US 50.   [5] The Constitution of the United States of America, First Amendment.   [6] “Constitutional Rights of the Corporate Person”. Yale Law Journal. (1982) 91 Yale LJ 1641

negative: Collective Bargaining is Not a Right  Whilst the freedom of association exists under the state and it is true that people should be allowed to communicate with one another and form groups to forward their personal and political interests, it is not true that the freedom of association automatically grants access to the decision making process.  Unions in this instance are problematic because whilst other groups do not have access to special privileges, unions are able to exert a significant and disproportionate amount of influence over the political process through the use of collective bargaining mechanisms. This argument applies to private unions as well, although to a lesser extent, and the banning of collective bargaining for private unions would be principally sound. In the case of unions in the private sector they can cause large amounts of disruption which has a large knock on impact on the economy giving leverage over politicians for whom the economy and jobs are always important issues. For example unions in transport in the private sector are just as disruptive as in the public sector. Even more minor businesses can be significant due to being in supply or logistics chains that are vital for important parts of the economy. [1] The access to the decision making process that unions are granted goes above and beyond the rights that we award to all other groups and as such this right, if it can be called one at all, can easily be taken away as it is the removal of an inequality within our system.  Further, even if collective bargaining were to be considered a “right,” the government can curtail the rights of individuals and groups of people should it feel the harm to all of society is great enough. We see this with the limits that we put on free speech such that we may prevent the incitement of racial hatred. [2]  [1] Shepardson, David, “GM, Ford warn rail strike could cripple auto industry”, The Detroit News, 30 November 2011,   [2] Denholm, David “Guess What: There is no ‘right’ to collective bargaining.” LabourUnionReport.com 21/02/2011

negative: americas middle east house believes us and israel should join international Domestic courts are often incapable of providing a fair trial, when they fail the ICC fills the void.  Domestic legal systems will often suffer from a lack of judicial independence and potentially politicised prosecutions, and are also open to allegations of victors’ justice, or whitewashes by a judiciary biased towards the winners of the conflict.  The ICC, as an effective court and with an independent judiciary, provide a suitable and unbiased climate for these cases to be heard in. While it is difficult to give any former head of state a fair trial, it is even more so in cases involving states divided along ethnic and political fault lines where any conviction could be seen as one based on continuing hatreds rather than evidence and criminal procedure.  It is clearly in the interests of the United States and Israel to support the principle that where there is no independent judiciary cases can be moved to a higher level. These states as much as any other desire that those who commit large scale international crimes be brought to book. The ICC for example might provide an alternative method of going after terrorists.  In addition, the principle of complementarity – that the ICC should only prosecute where states have shown themselves unable or unwilling to prosecute - means that when a state can take effective action against war crimes, there will be no role for the ICC. This means that the US and Israel with independent judiciaries should have nothing to worry about unless their judiciary proves unwilling to prosecute if one of their own nationals commits a crime prosecutable by the ICC.

negative: Corporations represent the collective labour, goals, capital and ideas of a vast number of people. Far from representing a “person” who is accorded undue influence and significance by politicians, corporations are crucial in allowing major contributors to national economies to have a say in the affairs of the states that govern their activities.  It has already been established that corporations- even profit-led corporations- are capable of operating under complex regimes of objectives and goals. Not all corporations bow to the profit motive solely and exclusively. Suppose- following the Bradly Smith article quoted above- that a corporation faced the prospect of downsizing unless it could access a lucrative government subsidy. Loss of jobs would anger the company’s workers union. The corporation would have every incentive to use its influence to affect the decisions of the politicians responsible for distributing the subsidy. Moreover, in expressing an opinion on the matter, the corporation would be reflecting the views not only of its shareholders, but also of its workers and their union, it suppliers, its creditors.  Corporations can have an insight into the economic processes driving particular states that politicians may lack. Corporations concentrate very specific skills, skills that may not be reflected in a civil service, and are often based placed to provide opinions on- for example- trade relations with foreign states or the educational and research projects that a government should invest in. Individual students and scientists are unlikely to be able to muster this much influence.  Corporate entities represent a number of objectives, each supported by a large number of natural individuals. Even if a business corporation is sometimes at odds with its workers, those workers would still agree that they have an interest in the success of that corporation. Politicians do not court the support of corporations because they are wealthy or powerful as “individuals”, but because they contain significant numbers of voters with comparable views, concerns and aspirations.