Mitch McConnell

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his moneyed, special-interest bedfellows feel that limits on campaign contributions are an egregious violation of free speech (March 15). I have a suggestion. Instead of limiting either contributions or spending, simply require that any candidate or contributor who donates or spends more than a certain amount of money donate an equal amount to any opposing candidates in their particular race. Legitimate “opposing candidates” could be defined by criteria similar to those required now for matching federal funds.

Under such a law, rich candidates and corporations can’t complain about having their free speech trampled; in fact, the more money they donate, the more free speech we’ll have--for everyone. Let a thousand vigorous conversations bloom. Such contributors cannot complain that they’re being forced to aid the opposition, as no one is compelling them to donate money in the first place. If the threshold is made low enough--say, $200--many of those now alienated from the process (i.e., most of the public) may take a greater interest, since it will be the “little guy” who becomes the real power broker, capable of swinging the race one way or another.

PAUL JOSEPH GULINO

Santa Monica

Are Clinton’s fund-raising methods illegal or not? If they are, Congress should act appropriately. If not, the Republicans should shut up about Clinton and get going on some serious campaign finance reform. But no. Senators like McConnell are not interested in regulating campaign funds raised or spent. That would limit free speech.

Except campaign “speech” as we know it is not free. It is obscenely expensive. If they practiced true free speech, political candidates would make themselves accessible to the public. There would be no canned answers to canned questions. No media manipulator, no PR person, no image protector. No handlers. No pollsters. None of the incessant, poisonous ads that say zilch about a candidate. And guess what. Without all that expensive snake oil, a campaign might not cost so much.

Are we not knee-deep in irony if we are to believe that taking big money out of politics would infringe upon the 1st Amendment, whereas allowing big money to own our democracy is perfectly constitutional?

TOBI DRAGERT