To the editor: As part of the campaign to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, Jessica A. Levinson continues a sad academic tradition of starting in the middle. ("Why shouldn't California voters get to weigh in on Citizens United?," Op-Ed, Aug. 14)
Of course there is "big spending to influence campaigns," but the cure lies not in denying freedom of speech to the spenders but in eliminating the reason for such spending. And that reason: too much government power, the power to regulate and the power to hand out tons of money and other favors.
Were government restricted to its proper function (protecting our lives, liberty and property), neither wealthy individuals nor groups would have much to gain by influencing elections. Limiting government to its proper function wouldn't eliminate all influence peddling and corruption, but it would remove the major incentive to influence elections.
Mike Berliner, Los Angeles