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?
This debate is presented in partnership with the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law as part of the Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series. It will be recorded live in person on Wednesday, February 21, 2024, at the Thorne Auditorium at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law in Chicago, Illinois.
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
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
💚WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
this was a fantastic debate. I came in certain that it was social media causing these mental health problems but I was persuaded that we just don't know yet. correlation is not causation. if the data really doesn't clearly show that there is causation we can't definitely say that it does. we definitely still need to regulate big tech and make it less addictive for a multitude of other reason tho
Is there a cat meowing in the background when the debate opens?
I really don't like when they "debate" yet both people are SUPER anti-Trump.
my question is, when did cancel culture not exist? book burnings, witch hunts, Jim crow, black codes , housing discrimination, end of segregation.....all these things fall under the category of "cancel culture" ....the only difference now is , power is starting to balance. people have always tried to cancel beliefs, cancel over human beings, cancel change ....what is toxic is the reaction for change
that one guy is only talking to people who already voted with him. he's not really compelling.
at this point keep "printing"(credit big banks out of thin air) money & spending so my crypto assets keep going up. Fiat currency sprinting towards ot's death, good riddance.
please go back to people who disagree. for example, when debating the state of the GOP, you had a bunch of left leaning people who don't like the current republican party.
Basically arguing whether being racist is a core GQP principle.
Gas tax is just a way to disproportionately put the burden of taxes on poor working people so rich people who don't even drive can pay less in taxes
Intelligence Squared is fun, but ridiculously easy to rig. All you have to do is get a half a dozen people or so in the audience who are on your side to agree to vote undecided and then change their vote. I have no doubt the honor system is disregarded in these debates
The opposing side is correct: patriotism is not the same as nationalism. https://twitter.com/TammyforIL/status/1281415977536815105?s=19
What a horrible debate 2 people arguing 2 sides of the same coin. A waisted crisis with just short term gains, and getting shorter still.
Whose science - kudos to the Politifact researcher who understood that the vast majority of Bible believers are NOT anti- science, rather they are cognizant that there are different viewpoints even among scientists and that scientific truth evolves with new discoveries. 🙂
Seems like you consistently interview liberals. How about interviewing some thoughtful conservatives. Luke Goodrich from Becket on religious liberty would be a good choice.
Seems like you 5 consistently interviewing liberals. How about interviewing some thoughtful conservatives. Luke Goodrich from Becket on religious liberty would be a good choice.
No!
Well, as far as the result goes, little surprise there given the venue. The one comment that stood out to me was made by the Italian debater: 'they[The US] still see the european union as a different entity, as an economical one.' Well that was how it was marketed when the european peoples consent was still required.
brainwashed
Great debate! Also, something to consider. Tristan Harris told "60 Minutes" earlier this year that companies have a "whole playbook of techniques" to keep people glued to their apps as long as possible, ( https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chamath-palihapitiya-former-facebook-executive-social-media-ripping-apart-society/ ). Dopamine, Smartphones & You: A battle for your time, ( http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/dopamine-smartphones-battle-time/ )