Individuals and organizations have a constitutional right to unlimited spending on their own political speech
Topics: Economics, Law, Politics, U.S.
Public Release Date: June 26, 2014
Is independent political speech the linchpin of our democracy or its Achilles' heel? For democracy to work, some say, citizens (and corporations, and unions, and media outlets, and other voluntary organizations) must be allowed to express their views on the issues, candidates, and elections of the day. This proposition, they say, is exactly why the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and of the press. On this view, restrictions on independent political speech undermine and subvert our constitutional structure. But others take a different view: If everyone can spend as much money as they like to express their political views, then some voices will be amplified, magnified and enhanced—while others will be all but drowned out. On this view, it is this inequality of influence that subverts our constitutional structure—and restrictions that level the playing field actually enhance rather than abridge the freedom of speech.
ARGUING YES:
Floyd Abrams: Senior Counsel at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
Nadine Strossen: Senior Fellow at FIRE; Former President of the ACLU
ARGUING NO:
Burt Neuborne: Professor at NYU Law, Founding Legal Director of the Brennan Center for Justice
Zephyr Teachout: Associate Professor at Fordham Law, Former National Director of the Sunlight Foundation
MODERATOR-IN-CHIEF:
John Donvan: Emmy award-winning journalist