Travo v stannard67


Resolved: That market-based mechanisms are the best check on corruption.

Aff: Travo
Neg: stannard67
Judges: TBD by mutual preferencing
Start: Saturday, December 17


I’ll also be available.


I’m an option should you want to use me as a judge.


If needed I’d be honored.


Ditto, but without the honor part…



i would judge (considering the decision doesnt have to be like right after the round- i have computer access problems, heh


I’ll be the judge that’s already decided, if you want me to. Or I could judge normal…


I volunteer to judge this round. That is, if no one has a problem with that?

Seriously, though, thanks for all the volunteers. I’ve no objections to any on this list, though some play more to my strengths than others, so I’d still like to discuss it with Stannard.


My suggestion is that Jason prepare a preference form with all the volunteer judges on it, and send it privately to Travis and me. We will send our preferences privately back to Jason. From those lists, perhaps the five most mutually preferred judges could be used.

I am open to other suggestions.



I was planning on just having each of you privately rank all available judges and I will use the 5 lowest aggregate ranked judges.


Done, via PM to Catbert.



Is Jason available to judge, or no??


I have not posted my availability to judge, so no, I’m not available. I doubt I would be highly preferred by either debater anyway. :slight_smile:


Travis, please PM your judge rankings ASAP.


Originally posted by boredguy8
[B]Or I could judge normal… [/B]

If you did, it would be the first time…



Jason, surely in a zero-sum game such as this, if you sense that a judge is even less beneficial to your opponent than he is to you, he has become beneficial to you, no matter how incompatible he would appear on the surface. Hence, I was curious.


Judges are as follows:

Rebeccah Sharp


First aff speech (travo) should be posted by midnight on Saturday.


Fantastic. Thanks to both competitors for the nod of approval. :slight_smile: And best of luck.

shuts up now and listens to debate


Market forces are the true forces of democracy. Any time democracy works through government, it works through a filter on individuals working with nothing more than their own self-interest at heart. This always instills a fundamental layer of corruption and obfuscation in any attempt to regulate the functioning of the market, which is free of such over-arching rulers and is only responsive to the needs of its ?constituents?.

This is not to say that the market is a perfect arbiter acting always in accordance with the people?s utilitarian needs. That is merely to say that any other attempts to reign in corruption through government will tend to create more corruption than they expunge. The market is the best tool to combat corruption.

Res analysis ? As the Gov, I reserve the right to define. As the first speech, my job is to set up a framework through which a fair debate can affirm or deny the resolution. That is the entirety of my ambition. I parametricize the scope of the resolution to provide a fuller debate on the issue, and that is the way I engage the resolution. It is this that allows me to submit my proposal for this debate ?

Plan ? All efforts at campaign finance regulations should be halted, with one exception ?
The FEC will continue to guarantee that those campaigning for elected office disclose the source of their contributions.
The FEC?s duties helping to administer free and fair elections but not dealing with campaign finance will continue.

Inherency should be unnecessary. This isn?t how the system works, and certainly both congress and the ?will of the people? are against my proposal. But I believe that it?s impossible to get the monetary influence out of politics. And moving the money above the board is the best way to sanitize it.

Slightly more res ? this case admittedly doesn?t address everything the res could ever mean, but it?s an extremely debatable example of the res that allows for the fullest and fairest debate, and therefore should, I hope, be acceptable to everyone. I hope no one tries any lame ?framer?s intent? arguments, let?s just treat this like a normal debate round.

The rest of this speech shall consist of advantages with both solvency and ?harms? embedded which demonstrate, prima facie, that my case is a good idea and demonstrates the truth of the resolution.

Advantage 1 ? Free speech.
A - Right now, American?s freedom of speech in grossly impinged upon by acts such as McCain-Feingold which limit when and how they can speak. This leaves aside the separate freedom-of-speech claim that not allowing donations is itself a limit of constitutionally protected speech. It is a matter of record and law that, 60 days before a general elction, a curtain descends over American free speech. No longer are everyday American citizens permitted to speak out for or against political candidates on radio or television. Their ads are prohibited. Their viewpoints are exluded. Their politics are silenced. Their rights are abrogated.

B - This is a shameful state of affairs that my policy would necessarily alleviate. This silence is imposed under the guise of campaign finance reform (CFR). Clearly, it should be a matter of little discussion that when you eliminate all of CFR, this limitation of our free speech rights will be lifted.

C ? The impacts of this development would be significant. This would allow people to speak out for or against their government with their full voices, not foolishly regulated in the name of ?clean campaigns?. For how could a campaign that limited the speech of its citizens even be considered democratic, let alone clean? There was discussion of regulating the marketing of Fahrenheit 9/11 in the window of silence, but the FEC chose not to engage that fight. Nonetheless, the SQ of CFR law would have allowed the FEC to silence Mr. Moore, and anyone else trying to speak out in advertisements.

D ? The most important and direct advantage is an immediate jump in the participation of the people in today?s system. This will be more fully fleshed out in later positions, but the fundamental narrative of this debate will be of a nation more fully engaged in its political struggles. To begin, right now, CFR limits people from expressing their political beliefs in 2 ways ? money and speech. As mentioned before, people can?t speak out in ads starting 60 days before an election. Further, the way they give money is strictly limited, allowing individuals to only give in small denominations. If both of these limitations are thrown off, pent up political interest will flow into the system. Citizens who were previously silenced will be able to speak out. Having the freedom to speak and influence an election draws the populace into that election! If you can give a great deal instead of a little, you become much more invested in the result, and likewise much more active.

E ? As will be further explained later, this also draws people more actively into the system because if they desire to know where the contributions to their candidates are coming from, they have to seek out this knowledge. This necessary affirmative step pulls people into the electoral process more directly that they current passive system. This direct engagement is likely to lead to a more educated electorate, as people become more used to actually seeking out information about the candidates. Further, it will yield more information about a candidates supporters, such as, just who funds him, anyway? And who funds him the most? As will be more fully explained later, this will yield a more effective democratic process, helping to select better leaders.

Advantage 2 ? Robust debate.
A - Link 1 - In any given campaign, there are more unique viewpoints than candidates. Particularly since all focus is given to the major-party candidates, the two party system is woefully under-equipped to present the totality of important information and perspectives in any discussion. Because current CFR rules silence these view, the debate is not as well developed as it could or should be.

B ? Link 2 ? Because so much money is artificially eliminated from the race, campaigning efforts are not as robust as they could be. Surely if money was allowed to freely flow into the system, we can all agree that more money would be spent on campaigns. That money translates into events, advertisements, and other venues candidates can use to get their message across./ While campaigning may seem like a monologue, all acts of campaigning engage in the debate about who should be elected. By expanding the debate, you get more opportunities for voters to learn more about candidates. You also make those voters more interested by allowing them to express their opinions through unlimited donations.

C. ? Impact ? When combined with more enthused participation, this increase in the scope and depth of debate will help allow elections to turn into more informed discussion of ideas. In the SQ, candidates whose money is closely regulated and therefore carefully saved engage in the highest value ads, the uncomplicated attack ads that so simply convey such a powerful, all-encompassing message. But if candidates had access to more nearly unlimited money, the attack ads wouldn?t disappear, but they?d be fleshed out by policy ads meant to appeal to the smaller portion of the constituency that actually cares about issues at all, let alone a specific issue. Can one really deny that if there were a huge proliferation of ads, the diversity of ads would also increase? These new ads allow voters to weigh actually information. When vitriol is heaped on both sides, voters weighing the real facts can tip the scales one way or the other, allowing for a truly better method of electing our leaders. However, the most important way this improves the electoral process in this country, leading to the aforementioned impacts, is yet to come.

Advantage 3 ? Accountability of influence
A ? In the SQ, politicians are as influencable by money as ever. For instance, politicians receive gifts from lobbyists such as vacations (fact-finding missions) all over the globe, as well as copious other renumerative perks that influence the way a congressman votes. And while all of that info is supposed to be reported, much of it isn?t, and that which is isn?t really scrutinized, as it?s a rather accepted process in Washington. As such, the lobbyists have just as much sway in the SQ as they would post plan. But in the SQ, nobodies knows about it, because few people pay attention to what lobbyists give government officials.

B - But they do monitor the election contributions. At least the media does, and it sinks into the public consciousness. The problem is, much of the influence bought is bought after the election, when no one is paying attention. One of the big reasons for the is CFR, which limits how much they can give in the vital times of the elections themselves, leaving them trying to buy favor under the board between elections as lobbyists. However, with no CFR, they can give all they want for the campaigns themselves, and this would become the primary method of buying influence.

C ? Meanwhile, their new methods of buying influence would be tracked; via aforementioned regulations the info would be released to the public. In this manner, people can truly see which businesses are buying which congressmen. This allows for still greater choice, as people get a chance to identify who a candidate really stands for, not the principles he disingenuously claims to stand ?for?.

D - When people see the ways webs of influences work, that doesn?t mean they?ll be able to simply choose candidates who are uninfluenced by anyone, because such a candidate is unlikely to exist in reality. But they can choose a candidate who?s allegiances align with their beliefs. For instance, I think drug companies are on the frontier of improving humanity, and should be accorded great respect. Therefore, when I see womeone is heaviny funded by Pfizer, that might make me more likely to vote for him. It enhances the quality of the choices. It makes the whole process less of a crapshoot. And it allows for more representative people to get elected, meaning government will allow greater representation.

E ? With greater representation comes more responsiveness to the need of the ideological minority (such as us beleaguered libertarians) as we can now choose candidates who truly stand for our beliefs. This leads to a more fundamental reform of who gets elected and who doesn?t. If all voices are heard equally, and everyone knows where those voices are truly coming from, America can have a real debate and choose real leaders who stand for what the public wants them to stand. And while we should adopt my proposal for the simple reason that it unshackles the ability of American to speak freely in their own elections, surely the attempt to improve our electoral system is an equally important, independent justification.

Advantage 4 ? More general declaration of the rights of individual expression
A ? In the SQ, the federal government is quick to trample all over the rights the constitution was intended to grant the individual. CFR law is merely one particularly egregious example. Individual right has been trashed every time a court ruling or law has declared federal dominion over every action in one?s life. This has happened often. However, this can be changed.

B ? Adoption of plan on specific free speech, individual rights grounds, as I propose, could help rejuvenate the moribund individual rights organizations that fight for the right of the people over the rights of the bodies that govern them. As many have heard, ?winners win?. A declaration that individual rights are still important, and can triumph over seemingly reasonable legislative restriction, sends the message that these cases are still worth fighting. Further, it sends the message that more may be resolved in favor of the individual and not the government. These real incentives will help encourage people to redouble their efforts in support of individual rights.

C ? When the forces championing individual rights win, we all win, as we are all individuals. Specifically, when our rights to free speech are thoroughly respected, it?s more likely that the court will construct the constitution to recognize other right of freedom such as civil liberties in general. Once accepted, the logic of freedom is hard to refute. As more individuals are drawn to the rights and the interests of the people, the most fundamental of all ?special interests?, the reformation of the election process can directly change the process of government.

D ? In a free country, we are guaranteed the right to speak on the phone without being monitored by yoiur government, unless they have a warrant. This is a right we lack in the SQ, where individual rights have fallen by the wayside. In a free country, we are permitted to say what we want, when we want, unless it?s a threat. In the SQ, this is not true. For the dream of American freedom to be achieved, the government must act in accordance with personal liberty. It must reject such illiberal policies as campaign finance reforms of all kinds. In the name of freedom, in the name of improved elections and governance, vote Gov.

  1. What is the warrant for voting affirmative?

  2. Your plan is phrased in the passive voice (“All efforts at campaign finance regulations should be halted”) and doesn’t specify an agent. Who, then, implements the plan?

  3. Are you claiming any kind of terminal or humanistic impact to the violations of free speech you claim result from not being able to place television or radio ads sixty days before the election?

  4. In your advantage 1-E subpoint, you write: “Further, it will yield more information about a candidates supporters, such as, just who funds him, anyway? And who funds him the most?” I am wondering if, as a favor to those who might be sensitive to gender-specific pronouns, and in recognition of the fact that there are female and transgendered candidates in the political process, you might apologize for the use of the generic “he” and acknowledge the fact that not all candidates are men.

  5. Does your ban on campaign finance regulation extend to the 1971 FECA act itself, or the amendments to FECA that were passed in 1974?

  6. Does your plan overturn Buckley v. Valeo, or will overturning Buckley v. Valeo be a necessary effect of your plan?

  7. You say you want this round to be treated as a “normal debate round.” Can you define what constitutes a “normal debate round?”

  8. What are “markets?”

  9. In advantage four, you write: “Specifically, when our rights to free speech are thoroughly respected, it?s more likely that the court will construct the constitution to recognize other right of freedom such as civil liberties in general.” I assume you mean the Supreme Court; does this mean that the Supreme Court is a necessary agent of your plan itself, or are you contending that your plan will affect future Supreme Court decisions, or both?