That was the question being debated on the most recent episode on the Intelligence Squared podcast.
Moderated by ABC News’ John Donvan, the debate featured Floyd Abrams (Cahill Gordon & Reindel Partner) and Nadine Strossen (New York Law School) who argued for the motion; and Burt Neuborne (New York Law School and Brennan Center for Justice) and Zephyr Teachout (Fordham Law School, Sunlight Foundation), who argued against the motion.
Here is description of the debate:
Is independent political speech the linchpin of our democracy or its Achilles’ heel? For democracy to work, some say, citizens (and corporations, and unions, and media outlets, and other voluntary organizations) must be allowed to express their views on the issues, candidates, and elections of the day. This proposition, they say, is exactly why the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and of the press. On this view, restrictions on independent political speech undermine and subvert our constitutional structure. But others take a different view: If everyone can spend as much money as they like to express their political views, then some voices will be amplified, magnified and enhanced — while others will be all but drowned out. On this view, it is this inequality of influence that subverts our constitutional structure — and restrictions that level the playing field actually enhance rather than abridge the freedom of speech.