Personal tools

Argument: Corporations already influence elections through PACs

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Greg Palest. "Manchurian Candidates: Supreme Court allows China and others unlimited spending in US elections." OpEdNews. January 23rd, 2010: "The ruling, which junks federal laws that now bar corporations from stuffing campaign coffers,will not, as progressives fear, cause an avalanche of corporate cash into politics. Sadly, that's already happened: we have been snowed under by tens of millions of dollars given through corporate PACs and "bundling" of individual contributions from corporate pay-rollers."

Kenneth Gross. Leads the political law practice at Skadden Arps; former associate general counsel of the Federal Election Commission. Wrote in a January 24, 2010 Washington Post article: "Contrary to popular reports, the sky is not falling. The Citizens United decision will not profoundly affect the for-profit corporate community. Government affairs operations in that community are based on the development of long-term relationships, supported by directly giving through PACs and personal contributions.

The rules regulating direct and PAC contributions have not changed one iota. Also, the requirement that political spending under this case be independent of a candidate is antithetical to the overarching mission of how a government affairs operation works. So, the "club" that the Supreme Court has given corporate America is an unwieldy one."[1]

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits