If the rich decide elections, it’s due to a lazy electorate
Syndicated columnist Gail Collins seems to feel that because the Supreme Court has allowed larger political donations, the rich now have more leverage in political elections [“Surprise! The rich won one,” Opinion, April 6].
Hey, are any of us forced to base our votes on TV ads, billboards and bumper stickers? Do the Koch Brothers (or any other billionaires) force us to vote for the candidates they support?
Or do all citizens have the opportunity, not to mention the responsibility, to inform themselves regarding all the candidates and issues?
If the rich determine the elections, based on their donations, it is due only to the laziness of the rest of the voting public.
Richard Askren, Seattle
Democracy sold to the highest bidder
There is just something so unseemly, wrong and even slimy about the Supreme Court’s rulings on campaign financing. It may be legal but nobody to the left of Glenn Beck could believe that that’s democracy.
Corporations that advertise their product or service have to pretty careful with the truth. False advertising can be costly. Not so with political campaigning. Just about any distortion, half truth, or even falsehood is accepted as fact, or truth, to some individuals. It’s what they want to hear, and truth is not a prerequisite. The rest of us, the vast majority of voters in this nation, want truth and facts as they are.
The Supreme Court should be above politicking. There is, of course, merit with their reasoning on free speech. But they decide what’s constitutional, not necessarily what’s right for this country.
Our democratic way of life has been sold to those with the most dollars, not the most votes. Whether we need a change to the First Amendment or campaign-finance reform, Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell should be pushing hard to right this wrong.
Don Curtis, Clinton