Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Voters can be trusted to judge corporate speech/messages

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission 5-4 Majority Opinion of the Court: "When Government seeks to use its full power, includingthe criminal law, to command where a person may get hisor her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."


University of Miami School of Business assistant professor of economics Christopher Cotton wrote that “voters recognize that richer candidates are not necessarily the better candidates, and in some cases, the benefit of running more ads is offset by the negative signal that spending a lot of money creates."[1]


Bill Maurer. "Corporate free speech is not un-American." Seattle Times. February 1, 2010: "The proponents of McCain-Feingold said it was necessary because when people associated using the corporate form, they would be too persuasive. In other words, once corporations, comprised of individuals, could "interfere" with elections, Americans would simply march to whatever tune corporations called.

This is nonsense, of course. Sometimes corporate advertising is influential. Sometimes it is not. How many Americans watch the XFL while drinking the Pepsi Clear they brought home in their new Oldsmobile?"

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.