Skip Navigation

This Critical Debate is a part of the EDCollection:

Oh no, you’re missing out on great content!

This content contains copyrighted material that requires a free NewseumED account.

Registration is simple — and comes with full access to videos, artifact, interactives, shareable content, and more.

Sign Up
?

NewseumED is provided as a free educational resource and contains copyrighted material. Registration is required for full access. Signing up is simple and free.

or log in to your account

Once you create a free account, 
you’ll have access to:

  • Downloads
  • Videos and Artifacts
  • Interactives
  • and more!

This Critical Debate is part of a Debate Comparison:

See all Debate Comparisons
Duration
30-60 minutes
Topic(s)
  • Constitution
  • Politics
  • Supreme Court
Grade(s)
  • 7-12
  • College/University

THE CASE

The presidential primaries are approaching and you are a federal judge hearing a case about whether the government should be able to limit who can pay for political speech during the current campaign. The case was brought by a nonprofit advocacy corporation, which is focused not on making money, but rather on raising and spending money to support political causes.

The organization is particularly opposed to one candidate. It paid to make a documentary that is extremely critical of this candidate. The film is intended for on-demand cable, and the organization has paid for TV ads to promote it.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC), which monitors political campaigns in the United States, has attempted to block the organization from advertising or showing the film. The FEC says it violates a law that puts strict limits on how much money corporations either for profit or nonprofit can spend to influence political campaigns in the weeks before any given primary or general election. The law was designed to prevent corporations, which have access to large amounts of money, from having too much influence on elections. Unlike super PACs, or political action committees that can spend large amounts of money to campaign independently for candidates, corporations are not required to disclose their financial backers.

The corporation has already invested millions in this film and its promotion and clearly believes that its message is important for the public to hear and should be protected as a form of free speech. The FEC wants to enforce the existing spending limits on political messaging during the last weeks of a campaign.

Do you rule in favor of the corporation or the Federal Election Commission?

  1. The corporation. The First Amendment should protect political speech no matter who — or what — is paying for it.

    Political speech has always been deemed the most important kind of speech to protect because it can help shape our government. The public deserves to hear these messages before they vote, regardless of who is footing the bill.

  2. The FEC. The First Amendment protections that apply to individuals should not extend to corporations.

    The law in question was designed to make sure that wealthy corporations can’t drown out individual expression. Corporations like this one should find other ways to share their political messages that do not violate campaign finance laws.

  • In what ways can money be used to influence politics?
  • Why could it be useful or informative to know where advocacy organizations get the money that they spend to influence political campaigns?
  • Why might television spots such as advertisements or documentaries be considered particularly influential during political elections versus nonelection years?
  • The law blocking the film bans corporate advocacy within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election. Why is it focused on this window of time? What are the arguments for and against having additional rules about political speech during this time?
  • How is money related to speech?
  • Should how much money you have control how much free speech you have? Should groups with access to a lot of money have an increased ability to spread a message? If not, how would you even the playing field?

 


 

More from our EDCollections

Explore more content within this EDCollection, or browse through all of our Lesson Plans, Critical Debates, Themes, Exhibits, Digital Artifacts, Historical Events, Videos, and Interactives using our EDTool search.
Quick View

Related EDClasses & Training

  • First Amendment and Tinker

    Students learn about the groundbreaking 1969 Supreme Court case that protected student speech in public schools.

  • Introduction to the First Amendment

    Students get a brief overview of the First Amendment rights and limits, and discuss what life would be like without them.

  • You Can’t Say That in School?!

    Students debate court cases to learn how far First Amendment protections extend in public schools, and why limits may be necessary.

Keep in the loop.

Sign up for NewseumED updates and newsletter today.