Campaign Finance and Free Speech

Re “Justices Pick at Campaign Donor Limits,” Oct. 6:

Am I too skeptical or is the Supreme Court too naive to believe that it is possible for politicians to accept vast sums of money without rewarding the donors in some way? Do they really think that if the money were given anonymously the same amount of money could be collected?

JOSEPH GRODSKY

Los Angeles

*

It appears that the Supreme Court will reaffirm its earlier decision that money is free speech when applied to elections. However, if one speaks or writes ill of fruits or vegetables in some 30 of our states, one may be sued. Elections may be legally bought, but bad-mouth broccoli, court costs or lawyers and then you can be bankrupted overnight. (Don’t get me wrong: We serve broccoli almost every day; my family loves it).

SYLVIA LAMONT

Gardena

*

People complain about the lack of campaign finance legislation (as if it were a one-bill-fits-all situation). The Democrats have lauded the McCain-Feingold bill because it limits corporate contributions but would do nothing to prevent the unions from spending millions.

The fact is that as fast as the laws are passed, politicians and their supporters will find loopholes. If “special interest” contributors cannot give to candidates, they will give to issue-oriented committees that are formed. Any further attempt to regulate these would be a violation of free speech and thus unconstitutional.

GARY A. ROBB

Los Angeles