mickey疯了

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the right of corporations and unions to spend money on political speech. That decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, didn't affect how much money organizations could donate to political campaigns — but it removed limits on how much they could spend themselves.

In a recent Intelligence Squared debate, legal scholars squared off on a question that gets at the heart of the debate over Citizens United, among other issues: Do individuals and organizations have a constitutional right to unlimited spending on their own political speech?

In these Oxford-style debates, the team that sways the most people by the end of the debate is declared the winner. One side took the position that political advocacy is exactly the kind of speech that the First Amendment is designed to protect, and that limiting spending means inhibiting expression. The other argued that spending is not the same as speech, and allowing unlimited spending gives some voices more power than others.

Before the debate, the audience at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia voted 33 percent in favor of the motion and 49 percent against, with 18 percent undecided. After the debate, 33 percent agreed with the motion, while 65 percent were against, making the team arguing against the motion the winner of this particular debate.

Skyler

http://oe.passions.com.cn/data/appbyme/upload/audio/201504/16/6w5v2nzxke85.mp3