Big money’s impact on politics
As noted in the Oct. 15 news article “Backlash builds against dominance of wealthy donors,” nearly
8 in 10 Americans think the ruling in Citizens United
v. Federal Election Commission should be overturned.
The article could have mentioned how we got stuck with this ruling. Back in the days when the McCain-Feingold Act restricted unions and corporations from spending in political campaigns, a conservative organization, Citizens United, produced a documentary, “Hillary: The Movie,” that apparently was intended to discredit former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. It sued for its First Amendment right to air the info-commercial and won in a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision.
Perhaps it would have been just a cheap shot to note that all five justices in that majority were appointed by Republican presidents.
William A. Hall, Front Royal, Va.
I am among the nearly 80 percent who think that the Supreme Court erred in its Citizens United decision and that the gigantic sums being poured into our endless political campaigns as a result are bad for democracy and governance [“Backlash builds against dominance of wealthy donors”]. But eliminating corporate donations, super PACs and the like would not necessarily be a panacea because it could lead to a situation in which the most successful campaigns are self-financed, giving a huge advantage to the megarich.
Thinking about a presidential campaign featuring more Donald Trumps is dispiriting.
Thomas Calhoun, Bethesda