Letters to the Editor

Public campaign funding returns process to people

If a CEO skims several million dollars from the treasury of the corporation he runs and spends it spreading scurrilous misinformation about the candidate you support, so what?

Why should the public be able to limit or even know what corporate leaders do with that cash? That must have been what Republican representatives reasoned when they recently rejected a bill requiring the disclosure of the identity of large donors (more than $10,000) to super PACs.

And if a politician who writes legislation affecting that CEO's corporation asks him to buy several very expensive tickets to a campaign fundraiser, well, the CEO can't expect the politician to grant access to his office and influence for free, now can he?

And if you want to challenge this system and run for office yourself, but your opponent is lavishly funded by the "leadership" PAC of the political party chief in the Statehouse, well isn't that just the way democracy works in America?

Alas, that is the way it works unless we citizens persuade our representatives to put reasonable limits on these bribes we call "campaign contributions" and offer candidates the alternative of public funding.

It's election season. Now is the time to demand that candidates promise to support publicly funded elections. Now is the time to insist that they back a constitutional amendment overturning the outrageous Citizens United ruling from the Supreme Court, insuring the court can't undo campaign finance reform laws. That's how we "take our country back" from the special interests.

Raymond Dominick