Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Argument: Citizens United illogically increases money in elections
From Debatepedia
| Revision as of 22:22, 3 February 2010 (edit) Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Current revision (14:03, 30 June 2010) (edit) Lenkahabetinova (Talk | contribs) (→Parent debate) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Parent debate== | ==Parent debate== | ||
| - | *[[Debate: Unlimited corporate spending in elections]] | + | *[[Debate: Corporate free speech]] |
| - | *[[Debate: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]] | + | *[[Debate: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]] |
| - | + | ||
| ==Supporting quotations== | ==Supporting quotations== | ||
| Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor dissented from the majority ruling on Citizens United, arguing: "At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission] | Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor dissented from the majority ruling on Citizens United, arguing: "At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission] | ||
Current revision
Parent debate
Supporting quotations
Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor dissented from the majority ruling on Citizens United, arguing: "At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."[1]
