Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Citizens United illogically increases money in elections

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
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]

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.