Personal tools

Argument: Unfair to free corporate spending, while limiting campaign fundraising

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Cleta Mitchell. "Partner at Foley & Lardner who works in campaign finance law; filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Citizens United, on behalf of two advocacy organizations opposing the ban on corporate expenditures, wrote in a January 24th, 2010 Washington Post article: "Campaigns, corporations and unions can all now spend as much as they want on campaign ads. But campaign finance laws dramatically limit how much candidates (though not corporations or unions) can raise and from whom. Generally, candidates may only accept contributions up to $2,400 per election from individuals and up to $5,000 per election from PACs. In contrast, Citizens United allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums attacking or supporting candidates. So picture this: An interest group makes a single phone call to raise $250,000 for attack ads in the waning days of a campaign. The candidate must find more than 100 willing donors, able to give the maximum permissible $2,400 contribution, to answer those ads with an equivalent buy. [...] One solution is for Congress to repeal the limits on how much and from whom candidates can raise money. However, those who see the court's opening of the doors to unlimited corporate spending as a problem are unlikely to see unlimited corporate contributions to candidates as the solution. Rather, Congress should repeal the limits on how much national political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates, which might restore some balance to the system."[1]

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits