Letter: Campaign spending out of control

The editorial "Politics, money and farce" [Jan. 22] suggests that a valid approach to address concerns over the amount of corporate spending on our elections is to insist on complete and prompt disclosure about who is funding campaigns. Disclosing the sources of political spending does not put an end to corporate money being used to run ads and engage in other activities to sway voters. Disclosure may minimize the damage of the Citizens United ruling, but the only way to truly escape the damage is to reverse the decision.

The decision is based on the constitutional protections of the First Amendment, which means to reverse it a constitutional amendment would be needed.

Many Americans feel that corporations have too much power in our democracy, and people have too little. It is this voiceless sense Americans are feeling that has led grassroots coalitions to form across the nation to support a constitutional amendment that firmly establishes that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights.

Corporate interests successfully defeat policies that would address the critical issues that impact our everyday lives, such as climate change, health care and financial regulation of Wall Street.

It has taken a century's worth of court rulings to create a political system so tilted in favor of corporations, and now we Americans will need to get organized to take back our democracy. Simply disclosing who is spending the money does not level the playing field.

Lauren Carmichael, Coram
 

The Supreme Court's decision has had the effect of unleashing a tidal wave of money that has further corrupted the election process and made our politicians mere front men for rich individuals and corporations that seek to influence policy.

Like many Americans, I have lost confidence that the system works for us. Instead, we have politicians both Republican and Democratic as talking heads spouting any platitude or promise to a naive electorate while at the same time soliciting money from the well-heeled who really call the shots.

Might these financial "friends" of a candidate have some agenda or interest they want the candidate to pursue if elected?

Jack Pepitone, West Hempstead
 

I do agree that if we allow super political action committees, we should require transparency and disclosure, however, the idea that they exist in the first place is repugnant. Corporations are not people. Corporations can't be sent to jail or die for their country, and if spending money is free speech, then sales taxes should be unconstitutional.

The fact is, most people who vote don't take the time to do extensive research on candidates. They get their information from advertising, especially on TV.

We must state in a constitutional amendment that a candidate for elected office is allowed to accept campaign contributions only from those citizens eligible to vote for the office they seek, and all other sources are prohibited. I recommend that it also include that no one can contribute more than 10 percent of the federal poverty level for an individual, which right now would be about $1,100. That way, the limit would scale with inflation.

Requiring public disclosure only means it will be on an obscure corner of some website where Joe and Jane Voter will never hear about it.

Harry R. Burger, Huntington Station