By
Celina Kareiva
March 4, 2010
Gowen 301 was the site of last night’s winter debate between the College Republicans and the Young Democrats. Students squared off about funding higher-education and the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC).
Photo by John McLellan.
Young Democrats, senior Laine Anderson and freshman Wilson Faust, and College Republicans sophomore Will Hagen and junior Shane Dinius, prepare for their debate yesterday.
“Most club members will leave with the same opinion they have coming in,” senior and Young Democrats member Laine Anderson said. “But you still get knowledge about the issue from both perspectives, which I think is really important. For people who are less educated on the issues, they get to learn in detail what either side feels.”
The political debate is a quarterly tradition between the two prominent student groups. Discussion themes are typically selected by both parties and then agreed upon according to topic overlap. While the debate allows these political rivals to go head to head, it also provides a forum for students interested in learning more about current events. Many students who do not affiliate with either club turned out for the occasion.
“We think this is a very tangible way to educate students at UW,” College Republicans President Justin Bryant said. “No matter if you’re a Republican or a Democrat, you should know how [these issues] affect you and who was responsible, so you don’t keep electing the same people who are actually just turning on you after they get your vote.”
The Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC., which concluded in late January, ruled that the government can’t regulate corporate campaign spending. Previously, corporations could not directly support and finance candidates.
“The law allows non-profit corporations and corporations to have the same free-speech rights as individuals and any other group … the First Amendment extends to everybody, which the Supreme Court decided,” Bryant said.
The Young Democrats called the Supreme Court’s resolution anti-democratic and claimed that it robbed individuals of their First Amendment rights by assuming that the shareholders associated with a corporation agree with its political views.
“The current decision under Citizens United violates individual basis, because instead of … [individuals] having their own voice on where funding goes, the elite group of a corporation would be able to decide where unlimited amounts of the corporation’s money goes — for or against a candidate.”
After rebuttals and a series of questions from the audience that turned into commentary, debaters Teo Popescu and Mark Donahue regrouped to argue the necessity of expanding higher education, regardless of students’ financial situations. Both political groups agreed that universities provide a vital lifeline for the economy.
“Democrats in Olympia are making higher education their lowest priority. It was the first thing they cut, and it was the hardest thing they cut,” Bryant said. “We’re making the argument that higher-education funding should be the top priority of the state. It affects our economy; it affects everything we do. We’re presenting that instead of stripping our education funding and increasing tuition. They should be taking Republican approaches, which would be no cuts to higher education.”
Bryant cited the 14-percent tuition increase as an example of what he considers to be the Democrats’ disinvestment in the university. He also proposed a tuition freeze, which would cap tuition at the rate for a student’s freshman year.
The Young Democrats echoed the Republicans’ concerns about rising tuition. However, their argument differed in their proposal for an income tax.
Young Democrat Wilson Faust agreed that club members rarely walk away from the debate with a changed perspective on the topics. Still, the quarterly tradition has a bipartisan appeal. It serves the greater purpose of educating student peers and initiating conversations.
“I wish more people were involved in the debate to get that practice and to operate when your beliefs are challenged by someone else,” he said. “Even if you’re going to stay with the side you started on, it gives you the chance to reflect on the shortcomings of your own views.”
Reach reporter Celina Kareiva at news@dailyuw.com.
4 Comments
#1 Van
on March 4, 2010 at 11:28 a.m.Mm hmm. Were the Libertarians or any other groups invited?
#2 Brian_Cox
on March 4, 2010 at 1:08 p.m.I think the idea was to focus on groups which have a chance at winning national offices.
#3 axiomata
on March 4, 2010 at 3:13 p.m.I did not realize that the UW Young Democrats and UW College Republicans had a chance at winning national offices. I did not even know they were running for anything.
Quite a lame reason to limit the diversity of a collegiate debate.
#4 Justin
on March 4, 2010 at 6:06 p.m.Young Americans for Liberty have approached both groups numerous times with the intention of joining in on the debates to no avail. We are hoping to be extended an invitation to the next event as we believe we have strong solutions we can offer to both sides.
Post a comment