No surprise that NYT attacks yesterday's Supreme Court refusal to change Citizens United.
But the paper also printed a vigorous letter defending that decision. It does not "buy" elections, says a Virginia lawyer, but simply "allows voters to decide for themselves what messages they want to consider."
Both views deserve a fair-minded reading. Decide for yourselves where the flaws are.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/opinion/campaign-spending.html
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/opinion/the-court-citizens-united.html
No comments:
Post a Comment