Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.
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 © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • At root of much youth violence is hunger
    At root of much youth violence is hunger

    Your article, "City's violence can take hidden toll" (Dec. 14), was important in that it outlined the issues of crime in neighborhoods and help that is being undertaken to curb the violence from the children of this city. It is important, but it doesn't address the cause for some of the...

  • Dealing with childhood violence
    Dealing with childhood violence

    Thank you for Andrea McDaniels' brilliant article on the impact of violence on children ("Advocates aim to save Baltimore children from impact of violence," Dec. 14). Pediatricians are so concerned about this issue — called Adverse Childhood Experiences — that we have made the...

  • Reduce littering? Yes. Death wish? No
    Reduce littering? Yes. Death wish? No

    I write in response to Charlotte Eliopoulos' criticism of Dan Rodricks and the other "older guys" on the bus who did not confront the young guy who threw a McDonald's bag into the street ("Littering comes down to a question of attitude," Dec. 14). Someone needs to remind her that it is not...

  • Big Ag must be held to account for bay pollution
    Big Ag must be held to account for bay pollution

    Dan Rodricks' arguments for protecting the Chesapeake Bay from pollution from chicken farms could have been even stronger ("Larry Hogan has a chance to be a green governor," Dec. 13).

  • Injustice is invisible to some
    Injustice is invisible to some

    Letter writer Charlotte Eliopoulos has the audacity to compare littering to the loss of life of three black males from the "bullets of policemen." And she further writes that "...had [the dead black men] been taught and held accountable [I guess she means not to litter] for proper behavior they...

  • Democrats wrong to criticize 9/11 response
    Democrats wrong to criticize 9/11 response

    I am grateful to those who were in charge after 9/11 for taking actions to protect our country, me and my family and our way of life.

Comments
Loading