Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Unlimited corporate spending is not constrained like with PACs

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 15:58, 19 October 2010; Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Greg Palest. "Manchurian Candidates: Supreme Court allows China and others unlimited spending in US elections." OpEdNews. January 23rd, 2010: "Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks (Barack Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC's federal disclosure filing and see the name of every individual who put money into it. And every contributor must be a citizen of the USA. [...] But under today's Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support candidates without limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.