Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99

Readers Respond

News Opinion Readers Respond

What world does the Supreme Court live in?

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 © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Hubris of Baltimore 'plagues'

    Hubris of Baltimore 'plagues'

    Who is the Rev. James H. Bryant to invoke plagues on Baltimore? What kind of religious leader would dare to exhibit such hubris ("The 11th affliction," May 29)?

  • Criminals are responsible for crime

    Criminals are responsible for crime

    Regarding the commentary, "Justice isn't blind in Baltimore" (May 28), Nancy S. Forster, a former public defender, seems to have left out the meat of the matter — the criminals themselves. Ms. Forster blames the police, the current governor and the past mayor but not one iota of responsibility...

  • Male circumcision is abhorrent, too

    Male circumcision is abhorrent, too

    Is male circumcision also a human rights violation ("Masking the truth at the BMA," May 26)? Seventy-five percent of the men in the United States have been circumcised. Fortunately, fewer circumcisions are being performed every year.

  • Let preschoolers be preschoolers

    Let preschoolers be preschoolers

    In the discussions about high quality pre-K and Common Core standards, it seems to me that we are missing something important ("Ready for Kindergarten?" May 23). We are so focused on preparing young children for the future and using them to fix societal problems that we are not paying attention...

  • Don't connect Reginald Lewis and Freddie Gray

    Don't connect Reginald Lewis and Freddie Gray

    To bring Reginald Lewis into the debate surrounding the tragic death of Freddie Gray, as commentators Ron Busby Sr. and C. Earl Peek did in a recent op-ed, is wrong ("Baltimore, Reginald Lewis and Freddie Gray," May 16).

  • Trial should be in Baltimore

    Trial should be in Baltimore

    Lawyers for the officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray claim they cannot get a fair trial in Baltimore and want a change of venue ("Officers want trial moved," May 28). This is downright insulting to Baltimore jurors. If the judge in Boston refused a change of venue for the marathon bomber...

Comments
Loading

82°