From personal experience, Moskovitz is not the brightest crayon in the box. It seems to me that this Senate is being biased towards certain organizations. You would rather not fund a conference for one organization to "help children," but you go and fund another organization which has plenty of money. Trust me, they have the money to do it.

"Talking politics in workplace is a right"
This article has a number of issues:
1) The first amendment doesn't apply to company policies about workplace speech unless Congress itself is drafting the company's office polices (CONGRESS shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech). BTW, there are laws against certain types of speech/press which are deemed harmful (i.e. obscenity, libel, slander, child pornography, inciting to riot, etc.).
2) Paragraph 4. How does it support your thesis statement that political speech should be allowed in the workplace? It seems like filler meant to show that you "researched" your topic. In addition, you used college graduates as a proxy for college students and knowledge as a proxy for involvement. In research, this is known as an error in construct validity.
3) "Knowledge is power and the more you speak the more you can learn." Please don't use cliché adages as the basis for any argument. This sentence reminds me of a cheesy PSA. "Knowing is half the battle. GI JOE!"
4) "[Talking to other people] helps people keep current with the country...Human interaction can be the best way to do so." So, human interaction can be the best way to talk to other people? Or is human interaction the best way to keep current with the country? Talking to other people IS human interaction, so these sentences are redundant.
5) Check again. The U.S. isn't a democracy. It's a democratically elected republic. In addition, companies are typically also not democracies, so I don't know why you are bringing up democracy.
6) While one's own job performance and that of others may not be affected by political speech, company performance may suffer if customers are offended and take their business elsewhere. Certainly companies should sacrifice their bottom line at times (i.e. to keep from hurting somebody). However, should they really have to sacrifice their bottom line because you want to talk about for whom you voted last week?
7) "Why should your political view be different than ANYTHING ELSE WE TALK ABOUT?" This falsely implies that no other topics are considered taboo in certain situations.
8) "...whether I am a dog or a cat person?" Everybody knows dogs are the better choice =P
9) The first sentence of your last paragraph should remove the word "making" or insert the word "Congress" before it.
10) Unless you pay the company for your being there rather than them paying you, it isn't your environment; it's the company's.

Now, I'm not saying your position is wrong, but your arguments are terrible.

Wow, what a fantastic article!