For many years, there has been an ongoing debate around corporate political speech. Many argue that corporations, due to their wealth and power, should have their political speech limited. Many disagree. For this forum you need to:

(1) Explain why/how corporate political speech should be limited.

(2) Explain why/how corporate political speech should be unlimited.

You may quote from the text or any other source so long as the quotations do not exceed 10% of your total response. Also, please make sure that your analysis of each part (above) is equally weighted. In other words, you must fully argue both sides without giving any indication which position you prefer.

To "complete this" discussion, you have to read and incorporate the following parts of our state and federal constitutions into your analysis:

U.S. Constitution - First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution provides: "Every person may freely speak, "write" and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right."

Article 1 (Section 12) of the Washington State Constitution provides: "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation . . . privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations."

You must also incorporate the following source on "corporate personhood."

Corporate Personhood:

https://www.upcounsel.com/corporate-personhood

The following links provide information on the money spent by corporations in the political arena.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fortune-500-companies-republican-democrat-political-donations-2018-2

https://howmuch.net/articles/the-30-biggest-political-donors-on-the-fortune-500