Debate: Has Citizens United Undermined Democracy?

Подписаться 211 тыс.

Просмотров 1,6 тыс.

50% 1

In a high-stakes presidential election year, in partnership with the Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, Open to Debate is taking a look at more than a decade of the Citizens United Supreme Court case. The 2010 landmark decision that ruled the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofits, labor unions, and other associations, changed the landscape of political spending in the U.S. This gave rise to Super PACS and an increase in election campaign spending. Since then, there have been questions about whether the decision has harmed our democratic process. Those who support the decision argue it upholds free speech, allowing diverse voices in the political arena, and broadens the range of discourse by enabling groups to freely express their views and support candidates or policies. Those against it argue that it allows a disproportionate influence from corporations and special interest groups, and leaves the voices of ordinary citizens overshadowed by the financial resources of a few, eroding the principles of equality and fair representation.
With this context, we debate the question: Has Citizens United Undermined Democracy?
Arguing Yes: Francesca Procaccini, Assistant Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School; Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Professor of Law at Stetson University
Arguing No: Floyd Abrams, Senior Counsel at Cahill Gordon & Reindel; Eric Wang, Partner at The Gober Group, pro bono Senior Fellow at the Institute for Free Speech
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates
This debate is presented in partnership with the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law as part of the Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series. It was recorded live in person on Wednesday, February 21, 2024, at the Thorne Auditorium at @northwesternlaw in Chicago, Illinois.
#opentodebate #debate #citizensunited #courtcase #SupremeCourt #freespeech
===================================
Subscribe: / @opentodebateorg
Official site: opentodebate.org/
Open to Debate Twitter: / opentodebateorg
Open to Debate Facebook: / beopentodebate
===================================
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Unresolved: The Iran Threat"
• Unresolved: The Iran T...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~

Опубликовано:

29 фев 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 24

@OpentoDebate 2 месяца назад

Explore our latest newsletter insights and debater editorials. Has Citizens United Undermined Democracy? Read here: opentodebate.org/newsletter-has-citizens-united-undermined-democracy/ Sign up for our weekly newsletters here: opentodebate.org/newsletter/

@SwitzerlandEducation4471 2 месяца назад

❤ great debate

@michaelnantell 2 месяца назад

Finally they are back to a live audience. I hated those zoom debates. BUT they need to bring back the voting through ballots at the end. The applause voting is a bad idea.

@isaacmcginn7923 13 дней назад

Does anyone have information about the statistic that corporations have never contributed more than 5% of campeghn finance? From my research I'm finding the number to be closer to 40%.

@vinceellis673 2 месяца назад

how is 'spending' equivalent to speech? How is the exchange of money conflated to the expression of political thought? If there ARE regulations on speech ie) libel, criminal conspiracy, purgery; than why can't there be regulation on political spending?

@Yelin7 2 месяца назад

Spending on a message is speech. A newspaper engages in printing things protected by the 1A. Imagine if a government said they could restrict the ability of the paper's owners to pay for printing copies and to hire journalists. But we're only restricting spending, one might say. No, you're infringing on speech.

@suarezguy 2 месяца назад

Citizens United was not about giving money to candidates but whether groups can make political messages at all (messages about candidates and parties as well as just issues, don't see how you could prevent them about candidates and parties but allow about issues while preventing all would even more clearly be way too much).

@suarezguy 2 месяца назад

Regulation like mandatory disclosures may be fine, banning, prohibiting expression is far different from and shouldn't be equated to just regulation. And US regulation policies on libel, on most speech issues are knowingly, deliberately extremely limited even though that can, does cause some harm being a lot broader would cause more harm.

@mikegrant8031 2 месяца назад

Its not citizens united is not the problem. It is treating corporations as people. Treat corperations as a legal entity but not one that has the rights of a person and citizens united is irrelevant.

@Yelin7 2 месяца назад

Corporations have been legal artificial persons for over a century. They don't have all the rights of natural persons, but they have some. If they were not a "person", you couldn't sue them. Further, corporations like the NyTimes, INC wouldn't have 1st Amendment rights either

@mikegrant8031 2 месяца назад

@@Yelin7 NYTimes inc does not need freedom of 1st amendment rights, a simple name on the byline solves that issue. The author has the rights. I don't know how you figure a entity cannot be sued if it does not have the same rights as people. Any entity can be sued incorporated or not.

@Yelin7 2 месяца назад

@mikegrant8031 I never said it has ALL the rights of natural people; in fact I said the opposite if you reread my comment. And yes, it can be sued (or sue) because of corporate personhood. Look that up to educate yourself. The NYTimes as an ENTITY has sued to enforce its 1st Amendment rights. Not all articles have bylines with individual reporters (think Editorials with the "Editorial Board" byline).