The Supreme Court may have been on firm legal and historical grounds in rendering their opinion allowing corporations to spend freely in elections, but the result will not be good for the people. At a time when the influence of the individual voter is already low, this ruling further erodes that influence. Legislators are elected to office by the voters, but in too many cases the interests that influence legislation the most come from legal entities with cash and no vote. They vote with their money, and legislators listen.

We would hope that Congress could restrict the activities of non-voting entities. We are even encouraged by initial reactions from leaders that indicate they recognize the inherent unfairness of the influence corporations, unions, PACs, etc. wield. We are not, however, holding our collective breaths waiting for meaningful legislation. Do we really think Congress will do the right thing while cutting off a major source of campaign funding? We don't think so.

What is needed is real campaign finance reform. What is needed is to replace the few big contributions from legal entities with lots of small contributions from real voters. Only those who possess the right to vote should have the right to contribute to political campaigns. There are other ways corporations can express their interests, but campaign contributions and other direct subsidies to elected officials should be off limits.

While we wait for real change, we can only hope that something meaningful will be done by Congress to better limit the influence of those with money but no vote.

Warren Updike, Towson