Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: Corporate free speech
From Debatepedia
(List of links)
< Debate: Corporate free speechThe following pages link to Debate: Corporate free speech:
View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).- Featured Debate Digest articles
- Debate: Corporate personhood
- Editorial news and tasks
- Argument: Unlimited spending allows special interests to dominate elections
- Argument: Unlimited spending allows corps to intimidate candidates
- Argument: Free speech applies to corporate speakers as well
- Argument: Corporations already influence elections through PACs
- Argument: Spending limits protect voter voices from being priced-out
- Argument: Ban on direct corporate funding is ban on free speech
- Argument: Corp election spending limited by transparency laws
- Argument: Unlimited spending breaks stranglehold of incumbents
- Argument: General statements in support of Citizens United
- Argument: Unlimied election spending is radical change
- General statements against Citizens United ruling
- Argument: Corporations do not have rights like individuals
- Argument: Unlimited election spending will increase corruption
- Argument: If media has right to speak, why not other corps?
- Argument: Citizens United illogically increases money in elections
- Debate: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- Argument: Citizens United frees unions too, but corps are richer
- Argument: Unlimited spending lets foreign corps sway elections
- Argument: Unlimited spending lets for govts sway elections
- Argument: Spending limits harm speech of advocacy groups & unions
- Argument: Shareholders will limit corp spending on elections
- Argument: Corporations are no form of free association/speech
- Argument: Corporate spending doesn't count as "speech"
- Argument: Voters can be trusted to judge corporate speech/messages
- Argument: Unlimited corp spending exists in many states w/o problem
- Argument: Corp. spending limits infringe free speech in assoc.
- Argument: Corporate free speech enhances the public debate
- Argument: Limiting corp spending is slippery slope against free speech
- Argument: PACs are insufficient enablers of organizational speech
- Argument: Govt has no authority to selectively offer free speech
- Argument: Corporations have valuable perspectives to voice
- Argument: Wrong to fine/jail corporate citizens for speech
- Argument: Limits on corporate spending chill free speech
- Argument: First amendment protects companies AND non-profits, unions, etc
- Argument: Free speech does not apply equally to companies
- Argument: Limits on spending are limits on speech
- Argument: Why limit speech of corporations, but not individuals?
- Argument: Free speech more important than fighting corporate interests
- Argument: Spending limits foster equal not free speech
- Argument: Unlimited corporate spending kills small-donor candidates
- Argument: Media has broader free speech rights than corporations
- Argument: Media speech implicates shareholders; no different with other companies
- Argument: Corporate spending in elections violates shareholder rights
- Arguing: Opposing election spending from corporations cancel each other out
- Argument: Corporate free speech helps check government power
- Argument: Corporate free speech protects govt of/by/for people
- Argument: Citizens United ruling pretends corporate spending doesn't corrupt
