Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Spending limits harm speech of advocacy groups & unions

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Chicago Tribune editorial board member Steve Chapman wrote: "If corporate advocacy may be forbidden as it was under the law in question, it's not just Exxon Mobil and Citigroup that are rendered mute. Nonprofit corporations set up merely to advance goals shared by citizens, such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association, also have to put a sock in it. So much for the First Amendment goal of fostering debate about public policy."[1]


Steve Chapman. "Free speech for corporations." Reason. January 25, 2010: "If corporate advocacy may be forbidden as it was under the law in question, it’s not just Exxon Mobil and Citigroup that are rendered mute. Nonprofit corporations set up merely to advance goals shared by citizens, such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association, also have to put a sock in it. So much for the First Amendment goal of fostering debate about public policy."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.