#92 - Is There A Constitutional Right To Unlimited Spending On Political Speech?

Open to Debate

Education, News, Society & Culture

4.6 • 2.2K Ratings

🗓️ 2 July 2014

⏱️ 52 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	GSK believes innovation starts when you stop to listen. That's why GSK and Veeve Health
0:08.1	Care have partnered with the HIV community for decades and developed medicines that better
0:13.9	fit the lives of people living with HIV. That's just one example of how GSK unites science,
0:20.7	technology, and talent to get ahead of disease together. Visit gsk.com to learn more.
0:27.8	Thanks for listening to the Intelligent Squared US podcast. Summer is a time to discover new
0:35.0	beaches, new adventures, and new podcasts. The Ted Radio Hour hosted by Guy Ross is an hour
0:41.2	of new ways to think and create with fresh approaches to old problems. Ready to explore? Dig into
0:47.7	the Ted Radio Hour podcast. Find it now on iTunes along with other NPR podcasts.
0:53.9	So look at all of the ways that Americans can use their own money to give themselves a voice
1:01.3	in politics. They can buy TV time, they can pay to get books written, they can put ads in the
1:05.7	newspaper, they can put up yard signs. And here is the argument about that. It doesn't seem
1:11.0	fair that people with the most money get to have the loudest voices. It seems like it would be
1:15.6	corrupting. It seems un-American. But here is the counter-argument. It doesn't seem fair to tell
1:21.5	people how much of their own money they can spend to say what they want because that sounds
1:25.0	like censorship and that seems un-American. That sounds like it has the makings of a debate.
1:31.1	So let's have it. Yes or no to this statement. Individuals and organizations have a constitutional
1:37.3	right to unlimited spending on their own political speech. A debate from Intelligent Squared US.
1:44.0	I'm John Donovan. We are here at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. We have two
1:49.2	teams of two, superbly qualified, all arguing for and against the motion. Individuals and
1:55.6	organizations have a constitutional right to unlimited spending on their own political speech.
2:01.0	Our debate as always goes in three rounds and then the audience votes to choose the winner
2:06.8	and only one side wins. Let's meet our debaters. On the team arguing for the motion that individuals
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Open to Debate, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Open to Debate and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.