Glenn Greenwald Vs. Prof. Lessig On Citizens United (Cenk Moderates)

Greenwald's Take: http://tinyurl.com/yaehj7y

Lessig's Take: http://tinyurl.com/yl9hpxo

Fix Congress: http://www.fixcongressfirst.org/pages/about

Watch more interviews: http://www.youtube.com/user/TYTInterviews

Follow TYT on Twitter: http://twitter.com/theyoungturks

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Lawrence
• Larry
• Lessig
• Glenn
• Greenwald
• salon
• salon.com
• change
• congress
• citizens
• united
• debate
• discussion
• professor
• harvard
• law
• school
• free
• speech
• supreme
• court
• states
• conservative
• 5-4
• ruling
• alito
• campaign
• finance
• reform
• publicly
• funded
• elections
• money
• politics
• democrats
• republicans
• corporate
• personhood
• special
• interests
• lobbyists
• corruption
• government
• cenk
• uygur
• tyt
• young
• turks

[DblOSmith]

The fact of the matter is, whether it's companies or just rich people, they can throw more money into the electoral process than a poor person, that means that they're have a heavier hand than others. Some are "More equal" than others in the election process.

They've gone from giving some people 3/5th's of a vote, to equal, to giving people or corporations millions and millions more of the same free speech than you or I have. It's wrong. Publicly financed elections. One MAN one vote.

[Polar515]

@bballadante Well, i have to say i half-agree. I mean, i think that corporations do run this country, but it's the majority of Americans that are stupid. I mean we elected bush twice! Even though he probably stole 2000. It's the stupidity of the American people cause they're told "they have the power" which is BS. I think ever since 2000 we lost our voice in government. And America is not longer a democracy. It's a semi-fascist military industrial complex sort of country.

[BeholdZeus]

Greenwald's defense of Citizen's United is utterly incoherent. Free speech refers to persons, not to corporations - who should be presumed to possess personhood. For some reason Greenwald wrongly assumes that a corporation should be allowed to speak 'in the guise' of a person, which is flagrantly in error. As other comments below indicate, the greater the accumulation of wealth by a specific lobbbying group, the greater its ability to influence the democratic process. Repeal Citizens United!

[hatemorethanyou999]

Citizens United just made it official, this country is now and forevermore will be a plutocracy

[kc1964kc]

during Thomas' contentious confirmation hearings in 1991, he received a huge boost when an outside organization ran $100,000 worth of television commercials attacking those Senators who were threatening to vote against Thomas' confirmation. That organization? A newly formed group called Citizens United.

from truthout.org

[dvictorbrown]

If corporations are citizens, then let them spend time in jail for breeches of law.

[urbanverificationist]

I suppose the question would be, what is speech? The Frist Amedment ought to be interpreted (I'm not going to guess at original intent) as only protecting freedom of expression a.k.a. all statements verbal or written. We can, quite arbitrarily, declare that the First Amendment does not consider campaign contributions to be either verbal or witten speech just as we have decided that physical violence is not speech.

[workingTchr]

@DblOSmith Thinking this through some more, thanks in part to our dialog, I've changed my mind! We SHOULD put caps on campaign spending. I don't think that people are smart enough to discern a clever argument from a not-so-clever argument. What matters with most people I now believe is SHEER REPETITION. The more they hear it, the more they believe it. So, getting optimal election results from an election is not unlike to getting optimal crop yield by precise feeding of the plants!

[DblOSmith]

@workingTchr That's better than just blanketing all media with a myth of your politician, name, and picture instead of an actual platform.