Public Appointed or Elected Officials Forbidden by Law and Constitutional Amendment is a Conflict of Interest.

• As the description states: "The position of Pro will be the position in favor of removing all Private interest money from politics. The pro position's purpose would be to prove an improvement in every aspect of the quality of life just on this change."
  
• Thus pro must prove an improvement in every aspect of society that exists, and must give an argument that we should remove all private interest money from politics, including individual donations or someone using their own private money for their campaign. Burden is on pro. 
  

It is true, itemizing every aspect of life and how it would be improved would prove difficult. My opening statement could have been more descriptive on how improvements would be made in every aspect. I believe I can prove that by making this change, improvements would occur systemically, and not on an individual basis. In other words, like Dominos falling in a chain reaction. I believe this can be proven by discussing evidence from past and current decisions from the American government. I am confident this change can apply to any government, however, my knowledge is limited to American policy. The pro position can be best proven if enough empirical evidence can be presented that all three branches of government have been corrupted by allowing private contributions to be a widely acceptable practice in our electoral, and legislative process. By proving this, the pro position believes that private contributions lead our elected officials to make decisions that do not  represent the American voter and instead represents private interest. Making one voter have a vote that influences an elected official or appointed official more than another vote that happens to not have the resources to influence said official is inherently unconstitutional, given that the thesis of the Constitution is, life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if all men are created equal. Therefore if all voters are equal, then each voter will be better represented. The three branches of government are: judicial, executive, and legislative. The powers of these three branches are distributed in such a way that each branch can check and balance the other. Will the opposition to the pro position agree that if all three branches are too corrupt to check and balance each other, then the voters' best interest will not be met? Respectively, if the pro position can give one or more examples regarding blatant corruption in each branch of government, the opposition to this argument should agree that further corruption is inevitable, causing each branch the inability to check and balance each other. I would like to thank my opposition for participating in this debate, especially seeing as this is my first time participating. I see my opponent has experience and I would like to apologize in advance hopefully taking my inexperience into consideration when it comes to any ignorance regarding common etiquette. 

improvements would occur systemically, and not on an individual basis. In other words, like Dominos falling in a chain reaction. 

The pro position can be best proven if enough empirical evidence can be presented that all three branches of government have been corrupted by allowing private contributions to be a widely acceptable practice in our electoral, and legislative process. By proving this, the pro position believes that private contributions lead our elected officials to make decisions that do not represent the American voter and instead represents private interest. 

• so you would be incorrect in precluding an individual basis from this. Individuals are certainly an aspect of the quality of life, so hopefully, there is an argument for the effect of improving such for all people rather than some or a few.
  

• 
  
• Secondly, there needs to be an argument that having/accepting private contributions is corruption.
  

There was a time in this country when we stood up tyrants. We stood up to bullies. We as a nation welcomed the sick, hungry, and huddled masses. We have defeated a King. We held our ground at the battle of the bulge. The U.S saw atrocities that would occur in time of wars such as The Nanjing Massacre. As a response to a brutal slaying of innocent civilians we established a embargo on Japan. Even as they retaliated by Bombing Pearl Harbor, we stood together because we knew it was the right thing to do. Franklin Roosevelt didnt look for a financial opportunity in WW2. He acting with great courage and righteousness and helped to defeat the Nazis  that swallowed most of Europe, and simultaneously pushed the largest Navy in the world back at the time back to their main Island. To take a quote from JFK, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. 
Nowadays, we seem to choose to do the easy things. We ignore the fraud, the indecency, the cowardice, and the indignant ways we treat each other. For instance, African Americans make up 12.2% of the  U.S population, but they make up 40% of the prison population. People may argue the reason is that they violent people and criminals. That is a lie. Anyone look up any high income Black community such as the community in Los Angeles known as Baldwin Hills or (the Dons). It is primarily Black Community sitting just above the epicenter of the L.A Riots. I'll spare you the suspense, there is little to no crime in Baldwin Hills. Now, inversely you might be surprised to discover high saturation of crime in communities that are predominantly white all across this country. Seeing as African Americans only make up 12.2% of this country's population. White's makeup approximately 70% of the US population. If crime only happened 12% of the time I might agree with you that black people are criminals and violent. Obviously that is not the case.
I use those factors as evidence to support the pro position, because any example of mistrust, descent, Injustice, racism, bigotry, or intolerance, derives from politicians, judges, authorities, mayor, governor, etc etc etc.. that are on the take. Or put more plainly accepting bribes. Do not fool yourselves into believing that charity, or non-profits are for the good of the people. I would even challenge someone out there reading this to see for yourself, look up how a non-profit works, via YouTube tutorial or one of your top results from Google. Most explanations speak of how much you can make from a non-profit, or how many ways tax exemptions will save you annually. the last portion of information you will receive when watching these explanations are how much you actually have to put into the cause of your non-profit. For example, you had a non-profit that donated to hungry children of America. The description of how much you must donate is a "reasonable amount." That is all.
Everything has been reduced to this in this country and abroad. My opponent who takes the con position as far as I understand has a problem understanding what corruption is, and how it would affect people's lives. I don't think most of us would disagree that we understand what corruption is and how to define it. We would also agree that corruption at the highest levels and every level of authority right down to the dog catcher would affect the quality of life of all people, whether it's individually, or as a country, or even as a world. My opponent also wasn't sure if private donations could be considered corruption. To answer that we can go back to the Supreme Court decision for FEC versus citizens united. They agreed with the FEC that campaign contributions should be limited and capped. That decision is confirmation that private interest could sway the results of an election, while public interests fall to the wayside. In other words they admit that free speech cost money if you want to your voice to be heard. That to me is what should be considered special interest funding to your representative is corrupt. However in the same breath the Supreme Court ruled that unlimited and anonymous funding is what's right for every other reason other than an election. But the only other thing our Representatives have to do other than win an election is to pass legislation. So the Supreme Court by not making private interest contributions capped and limited for all things they allow contributions to sway votes directly in the Congress and the Senate and even in the executive office. That is why corruption in this country is out of control.

Then, they draw non-profit fund raising tax exemptions, with administrative fees, on top of pac donations, stock options, investors of all walks of life, in return for pork spending bills, and contracts throughout the private and public sector. etc ... All of which at some point they could personally influence direct or indirectly, including lobbyists, judges, and other influencers. In other words, the opportunities to generate income personally as an elected official far out number the extremely bureaucratic process involved to pass legislation that is good for the many. Combined with the fact that there is no motivation in regards to the latter.

But the importance of thier vote does hold more importance than the average vote when a donation of unlimited amounts from an anonymous source, deemed free speech by the Supreme Court (FEC vs Citizens United). 

 effects the outcome...