Editorial
Grading City Hall: How is L.A.'s city controller doing so far?
Opinion

Letters: Mixing money and politics

Re "Campaign donor limits grow looser," April 3

Whatever one's politics, we all should be concerned about the corrosive influence of big money on government. More than 100 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt had to struggle with political bosses to get elected and pass reforms. Today's bosses are billionaires who spend millions to influence our politics.

The Supreme Court's most recent decision on campaign money (reasoning that political contributions are protected free speech) furthers the sale of our democracy to the highest bidder.

In 2012, winning a House seat cost an average of $1.6 million, compared with $753,000 in 1986 (adjusted for inflation). The need for each candidate to raise millions of dollars has grown.

Practically speaking, only the rich or their friends need consider running for federal office.

Only a constitutional amendment can restore meaningful political contribution limits and our expectation that lawmakers serve their constituents and not just rich donors.

Melbourne Boynton

Claremont

Democracy died for the majority of Americans this week. Only the extremely wealthy will have their voices heard, as it is not an acceptable government objective to "level the playing field," according to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

The court's ruling in McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission in effect legalizes bribery. After all, who would give millions to candidates without expecting something in return, such as bigger tax breaks, looser regulations and so on?

Regular people will now be silenced by the wealthy.

Debbie Wright

Rancho Santa Margarita

The radicals on the Supreme Court have ruled that the Constitution forbids effective regulation of what Democrats and Republicans have long agreed is the power of money to corrupt and destroy the democratic processes of government.

The Supreme Court apologists for government intrusions into the lives of citizens are fond of saying that such seeming violations of the Bill of Rights are permissible because the Constitution "is not a suicide pact." It now appears that they were wrong.

John Hamilton Scott

Sherman Oaks

ALSO:

Letters: The religious right's conversion

Letters: Another gun rampage in America

Letters: Mountain lion acts normally, gets shot

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Loading
68°