Having read your recent editorial about the Supreme Court's upcoming ruling on campaign finance limits ("Another blow coming to campaign finance reform," Oct. 7), here's what I would tell the justices:

To Justice Antonin Scalia: Who do you think is going to be invited to a dinner with unlimited access to a candidate over the course of an evening — the 70,000 people who each gave $50, the 7,000 who each gave $500 or the one person who gave $3.5 million?

Don't you think $3.5 million is a heck of a lot of money? It seems to you fanciful to think that candidates will feel indebted to big donors? What world do you live in? A justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America so removed from reality as to be able to make statements such as those quoted above lives in rarefied circumstances, indeed.

To Chief Justice John Roberts: I consider $50 a "modest" contribution; how would you define a "modest" contribution? Would it seem fairer to you if, instead of making one contribution of $3.5 million to one candidate or political group, that person made seven "modest" contributions of $500,000 to each of seven candidates or groups? Or perhaps, 70 "modest" contributions of $50,000 each? Where would you draw the line, above which contributions become threats to the functioning of our political process?

To all the justices: You've already done your best to undermine the democratic process with the Citizens United ruling; continue down this road and see what happens to an oligarchy when all those people for whom $3.5 million is unimaginable wealth become completely disenchanted and irritable.

Diana C. Schramm, Baltimore