Democracy Is NOT For Sale | James Bopp Jr | Part 6 of 6

SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-unio...
The Motion: This House Believes Democracy Is For Sale.
James Bopp Jr closes the case for opposition, as the sixth speaker of six in the debate.
Motion Carried.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.

[@VictorLiso]

Wow, his arguments were awful. Distortions and gaslighting.

[@kayem3824]

@Shahid Khan The Dems don't ?

[@homan2329]

The most telling thing Bopp said was " I represent those people "

[@FactsOnlyPlease.]

And one of those things is MTG-Margaret Taylor Green-who has demonstrated that she has no integrity.

[@bobzter434]

His point: "You find someone who agrees with you and finance them". That is flawed in many levels. Particularly right-wing politicians flip-flop and contradict themselves all the time - which is proof their legislation are up to the highest biding. Corporations have fiduciary responsibility, that means they finance legislators on profit - not social interests. Capitalism makes capital the epicenter in politics by custom, democracy can only be if people are the epicenter.

[@FactsOnlyPlease.]

They are motivated by greed, power, or fame even with a foot in the grave-SHAMEFUL!

[@thankqwerty]

Now I know what a devil looks and sounds like.

[@baderabdallah6642]

Few quick background on this guy I found to be interesting.. (on Wiki): "In an interview with PBS' Frontline in 2012, Bopp said he was defending a "basically absolute" interpretation of the right to political free speech under the First Amendment. He said he is working to eliminate or loosen campaign spending limits, and to eliminate donor-name-reporting requirements." "Bopp is particularly known for his opposition to all forms of limits on money in politics and his role as counsel for groups seeking, often successfully, to strike down campaign-finance limitations" "During a 2010 RNC meeting, he was the chief sponsor of a resolution covering financial support of candidates.The "purity test" resolution (titled "Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates") names ten public policy positions that are important to the RNC and stipulated that public officials and candidates who disagree on three or more of the ten positions would be ineligible for financial support or endorsement from the RNC. The resolution was defeated." Whether you like Cenk or not (5/6 clip)..he was right when he essentially said "money talks" and this guy is no different.

[@kensurrency2564]

This guy floated so many logical fallacies that my head was spinning. Horrific!

[@raymondelliott1546]

I thought i was the only one.

[@VictorLiso]

One would expect more of Oxford

[@katlarousse2862]

This man is a joke. Our campaign finance laws were already pathetic and now they've been entirely shredded.

[@Downloaded7]

He nitpicks the point of whether the wealthy donate to inform policy or whether they simply donate to policy makers with whom they already agree. While its a worthwhile distinction and I imagine both happen regularly, neither case refutes the claim that the donated money then goes on to increase their chances of winning, thereby "buying" the democratic process. They wouldn't do it if it didn't have an effect.

[@HSQadri]

Precisely. It's irrelevant.

[@DisProveMeWrong]

This man's false tone of disbelief is so grating.

[@DisProveMeWrong]

I am going to assume you are trolling.

[@teddybeddy123]

The very foundation of the oppositions argument is faulty- money is not speech. You are not persuading someone when you hand over some cash. His argument is that to restrict the exchange of money for favourable political outcomes would be to restrict the exchange of free speech. Except that the very presence of that money does restrict free speech by giving a much louder and therefore influential voice only to those who can buy such powerful vocal chords. Again, the opposition says how it's OK because the donors are supporting people they already agree with, whether they agree prior to the donation isn't the point of debate here. This debate isn't about a case of bribery, the debate is whether the elections are influenced by the donations that politicians receive which give them an unfair advantage, and in return for the advantage the donors have so generously given that politician and in the hope of future advantages, the politician must show undue favour to that donor when that donor has shown undue favour to them. No one is talking about instituting a dictatorship, what is being talked about, is the unfair playing field, that the disparity in financial donations creates a disparity in the ability to communicate and influence voters to vote in the way they deem favourable. This group of people who constitute the donors are not 'the people', they are 'the people who can afford to contribute financially'. He also raised, how only the media shouldn't be responsible for communicating to voters because they could only provide their own perspective which would be coloured by their owners, who are the very rich individuals and corporations therefore we should just cutout the middleman and let those very same individuals and corporations finance our politicians directly, controlling their ability to exercise their free speech to the same degree as their opponent.

[@bramvandenheuvel4049]

People in the USSR could vote, so I'm sure that that was (/is) a perfectly free, democratic society, then.

[@c.james1]

Hey, even North Korea holds "elections" with "votes".

[@chaacbze]

What an absolute crock!

[@AxelordSMIJES]

I've only watched the first 3 minutes of this guy after watching Cenk speak and I'm left asking myself one question - Do any ACTUAL regular people not see how not only disingenuous this guy is, but how he's grossly misrepresenting what Cenk said to the audience right before he started speaking? Which, by the way, was backed up with actual facts, evidence and common sense. There is truly nothing worse on this Earth than a person in power who is evil and corrupt that, either doesn't realize it, or worse still, has actually convinced themselves they are a good person. I can't think of anything more dangerous.

[@FactsOnlyPlease.]

The corrupted and spineless Repuke Party loves Bopp.

[@dnxls_]

Ever since Margaret Thatcher, PMs of both colours have consolidated power to 10 Downing Street to make the PM all-powerful (most recent example: Royal Prerogative court case). According to Mr. Bopp Jr, that _does_ qualify selling British democracy.

[@thecockerel86]

This guy is a lifelong debater? This guy? I'm going to assume the pre-debate lunch had dulled his senses. His reply to Cenk is so weak it wouldn't pass muster in a high school classroom.

[@HSQadri]

His entire argument is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Whatever their motivates, whether a billionaire or mega-coporation are 'true-believer' or not, or said politician selects his donors on principled grounds (hollow laughter indeed), does nothing to vitiate the argument that allowing said individuals a monopolistic influence of said politician, the elected representative of a mass of citizens, lends itself inevitably to a subversion of the will of the majority. Hence auctioning off to the biggest bidder effect. At bottom, powerful and elite interest have never wanted a genuine democracy; they never believed that their 'voice' should be equal to that of an insolvent beggar.

[@sownheard]

XD this is the best parody of a democracy is not for sale speech i have ever heard. This man can read everyones mind!!! XD ( this is the biggest strawman i have ever heard :3 )

[@joem1070]

James Bopp Jr, was a bad week to stop crack.

[@arizvisa]

It's very apparent that he's read Edward S. Herman's seminal work (should be) and he's essentially spent a portion of his life weaponizing it for the individuals who can afford it.

[@nehuenbombapagano1335]

Who is this clown? He should be an actor

[@davecaraballo]

The point is that large contributors have to much influence over politicians to the point that they vote angainst the majorities best interests In the interest of the rich and powerful.

[@Sandraud]

Back to school mr James Bopp jr

[@noneone.............]

I agree with you. The reality today is unmatch. If we wanna find the true thing about something, we need to live in true voice from every real heart of human being. It's all about human weakness. We're just human weak, mortal, and always in sin. If you're adult, educated, and at least you know you are human, Frankly keep stay in true is 🇬🇧 🌐!

[@DocRealTalk]

Yea....we wouldn't want to SHUT THEM DOWN lol We obviously know there are people that have different interests. That wasn't being denied by anyone. The whole point is about numbers. A very small percentage have a lot more capital than others. So they have a lot more say than the vast majority.

[@jamesmongold9467]

This guy is smarmy.

[@TY-vh5jx]

Red herring galore. So much bs from this guy. Insulting my average intelligence

[@overseachininadoll]

“Not for Sale” but it needs lots of money to maintain to keep it function. So where’s money come from? Democracy is very expensive and that’s the problem.

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

Clean water is also very expensive. That's why we have publicly funded reservoirs, treatment plants, and water mains to bring it to everyone. Do they always work? No. And when that happens, the answer is to do better, not to deregulate and allow anyone to do anything they want to the water source. You can't buy property upstream and hoard it all, demanding anything you want in return for a drink.

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

ribeiro j I woulf prefer a small amount of my tax dollars fund campaigns for candidates with whom I disagree than that they can only get to their position of power if a single wealthy donor happens to agree with them. I want a candidate to rise and fall on the basis of how many people like their speech (actual speech, not money) not whether or not a handful of people who have a ton of money like what comes out of their mouths. Now you may agree or disagree on publicly funding elections, but you can't deny that in the present system, unless you can give a MINIMUM of $1000 reliably on a phone call, you will not get more than a town hall question with you Federal representative IF you are lucky. And as James Bopp has previously said, you can buy a Democrat for a little over $100,000. Republicans cost a little more. Either way, they're all for sale.

[@AK-ux8vf]

What was the result

[@excinereresurgam9471]

The motion was carried..democracy is for sale

[@robertdoucet1207]

Cenk-oooff cooouurse! james-yyyyyouuu! yyyyoouuuu!!!

[@Sorenzo]

Waah. Waah. Theyr'e criticing rich male billionaires. Can't have that.

[@sTL45oUw]

Who are those fine looking girls?

[@pigeonmaster1]

Sorry to hear the motion carried

[@RonnieNimer]

James Bopp Jr sounds like a trump...