Letters: What the Supreme Court has done to our democracy
Re “Even more money in politics?,” Editorial, April 3
As an attorney, any remaining illusion I had that our highest judicial body decides cases on a nonpartisan basis is gone after reading the Supreme Court’s decision in McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission.
First, the tortured Citizens United finding in 2010 — that corporations have 1st Amendment rights similar to those of individuals — opened the floodgates for those who want to buy the government. After that, the Shelby County case gutted the Voting Rights Act, resulting in gleeful red states passing laws that prevent poor people and minorities from voting.
The five conservative justices have their feet on the scales of justice in favor of the rich and powerful. If there is any consolation, it’s that I can save time reading Supreme Court opinions: I can predict what they will say.
What has happened to my democracy?
Barbara H. Bergen
Los Angeles
I respectfully submit that your editorial missed the crux of the matter when you generalized, “That integrity is impaired when wealthy donors can purchase access to the people’s representatives.”
The issue is simply the integrity, or lack thereof, of the elected official; if he or she has integrity, there is no impairment — and no need to legislate limitations on campaign funding.
John F. Masero
San Pedro
While The Times rightly indicts the Supreme Court for its 5-4 decision opening the electoral process to even more influence by the rich, it does not highlight another insidious consequence.
Although it is hard to quantify, I think the psychological trauma to voters, especially after the Citizens United ruling, may do even greater damage. What we see before us is a political oligarchy that, chunk by chunk, is taking over our electoral process. We know it is hard to motivate the majority of Americans to vote, and now many will read the latest message as showing that there is even less reason to show up on election day.
When voters conclude that their ballots can’t offset the ownership of the process by wealthy donors, they will stay home. When enough voters stay home, democracy ends.
Jack Fenn
Montecito Heights
ALSO:
Letters: Going overboard on security
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
