Save 75% - Only $49.99 for 1 full year! digitalPLUS subscription offer ends 12/1
NewsOpinionReaders Respond

What world does the Supreme Court live in?

John G. Roberts, Jr.Antonin Scalia

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

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
John G. Roberts, Jr.Antonin Scalia
  • If criminals don't wanted their cellphones tracked they should stop committing crimes
    If criminals don't wanted their cellphones tracked they should stop committing crimes

    Regarding your recent editorial on the privacy issues raised by police tracking suspects through their cellphone numbers, I would gladly give up some of my personal privacy if law enforcement were allowed to locate and arrest criminals before they do me or my family harm ("The police are...

  • Bag ban casts Baltimore as 'Chump City'
    Bag ban casts Baltimore as 'Chump City'

    Nobody asked columnist Dan Rodricks about banning plastic bags, and nobody asked Baltimore retailers or shoppers either ("Nobody asked me, but City Council needs spine," Nov. 23).

  • Ehrlich's 'cult of anti-Obamaism'
    Ehrlich's 'cult of anti-Obamaism'

    Though I am 1960s retread boomer and unrepentant liberal who usually disagrees commentator Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., I read his column regularly. No surprise that he recently panned Obamacare — again — but what I never hear from Republicans is the Plan B, i.e., how we deal with the...

  • Let's just ban the bags
    Let's just ban the bags

    I have a problem with plastic bags and the bag tax issue ("Council passes body camera bill, plastic bag ban, but veto looms," Nov. 17). So much time and energy has been spent on this issue. When we take a step back and look at the bigger picture, there are so many daily issues, each much more...

  • 'Rain tax' not optional
    'Rain tax' not optional

    The recent sub-headline on the editorial regarding the "rain tax" was patently false ("The bogus 'rain tax' repeal," Nov. 23).

  • How can Ehrlich relish suffering of others?
    How can Ehrlich relish suffering of others?

    It saddens me to see the former congressman and governor of Maryland salivating with anticipation at the thought of depriving millions of Americans of decent health insurance by rolling back the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare is a varsity stinker," Nov. 23).

Comments
Loading