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
Essential Workers or Elderly? Larry Brilliant on the Vaccine Debate
Agree to Disagree: Are Identity Politics a Way to Win?
#187 - Should We Stop Worrying About National Deficits?
Agree to Disagree: Are Election Lawsuits Good For Democracy?
#186 - Is a U.S.-China Space Race Good for Humanity?
Election Special: A Historian and Futurist Debate 2020
Discourse Disruptors: A Divided Nation – One Perspective
A Supreme Special Episode: Amy Coney Barrett & The State of SCOTUS
#185 - Is It Time to Redistribute the Wealth?
#184 - Unresolved: American Policing
#154 - Has Globalization Undermined the American Working Class?
Newt Minow on the Presidential Debates
Agree to Disagree: Should Washington Break Up Big Tech?
Agree to Disagree: Broadband for All?
#183 - Is Nationalism a Force for Good?
#164 - Should Social Media Companies Honor the First Amendment?
#182 - Will Coronavirus Reshape the World Order in China's Favor?
#181 - Has The Electoral College Outlived Its Usefulness?
#180 - Was the Global Financial System Better Prepared for the Pandemic Than 2008?
#179 - Is the Defense Production Act Being Underutilized?
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free
The Meaningful Life with Andrew G. Marshall
The No-Frills Teacher Podcast
Heal, Survive & Thrive!
The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast
The Mel Robbins Podcast