Dave Kopel v. Ken Gordon on Amendment 65

Posted by on Sep 21 2012 | Constitutional Law, First Amendment, iVoices.org, Kopelization, PPC, U.S. Constitution

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 was a landmark case protecting political speech – whether in the form of a guy standing on the sidewalk promoting or bashing a political candidate or that same guy giving money on behalf of his corporation for or against a political candidate or cause. The Court found that restricting political contributions, even from groups of people formed as corporations, was antithetical to our Constitution in general and the First Amendment in particular. On the heels of that decision, the anti-speech interests around Colorado began constructing a plan to combat the ruling.

What ultimately ended up happening was a coalition of forces, mostly on the Left, raised a ton of money (irony?) to put Amendment 65 on this November’s ballot. As it appears on the ballot, Amendment 65 is titled, “Colorado Corporate Contributions Amendment.“Part of the Amendment 65 campaign’s stated goals is to overturn the Citizens United ruling.

This past Wednesday the 19th, local radio station KGNU hosted a debate on Amendment 65, featuring our Research Director Dave Kopel and former legislator Ken Gordon. As you might imagine, Dave took the position in favor of political speech and thus, against Amendment 65, while Ken Gordon argued against political speech and in favor of Amendment 65. You can hear the full 60 minute debate here on iVoices.org.

3 comments for now

3 Responses to “Dave Kopel v. Ken Gordon on Amendment 65”

  1. FLStearns

    Corporations are not adult persons. Money is not speech. Viva Amendment 65!

    22 Sep 2012 at 8:53 am

  2. Anonymous Coward

    Dave repeatedly brought up a good point: while intentions are good, we need to look at how these things are actually implemented.

    But the same applies to your socio-economic theories. “Corporate personhood” — which was the result of judicial activism — is as much of a destructive distortion of the market as government intervention. ()for example, see “Liars and Outliers” by Bruce Schneier.)

    Instead of being advocates of freedom and liberty, the Independence Institute has descended into being a proponent of “‘repressive libertarianism’, where certain people who call themselves libertarians invariably side with property owners who want to limit other people’s liberties through the use of contract law. Property rights (usually held by somebody with a whole lot of economic clout) trump every other liberty.”

    Especially shameful was the way Dave conflated a small business owner with the business corporation, even though he knows very well the two are not the same thing. Shame, shame shame. But as people who celebrate sociopathy as a virtue, I guess you have none.

    Congratulations on selling your integrity a long time ago. But when an organization has the same president for 14+ years — no term limits here — should anyone be surprised?

    30 Sep 2012 at 7:20 am

  3. [...] Finally, frequent I.I. guest author Ari Armstrong published an op-ed in yesterday’s Denver Post arguing against Amendment 65, which appears on this November’s ballot and would demand that Colorado legislators get on board with more onerous and restrictive campaign finance reform. In other words, to be FOR Amendment 65, one must be against free speech. Ari is fervently pro-First Amendment rights however, and thus, makes a good case against Amendment 65. You might recall that our Research Director Dave Kopel is also a big fan of free speech rights and recently appeared on KNUS to debate Ken Gordon on the issue. You can hear that debate audio here. [...]

    01 Oct 2012 at 11:34 am

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Clicky Web Analytics