Letter: Super PACs not healthy for nation

A 2010 court decision, SpeechNow.org vs. Federal Elections Commission, found in favor of super PACs, later confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United vs. FEC.

The Supreme Court said that the First Amendment's freedom of speech allowed groups to donate to a super PAC just as individuals (limit $5,000) can to a political candidate or party.

The fallacy of super PACs is that contributors can make virtually unlimited donations while remaining anonymous. The First Amendment was not meant to anonymously omit the identity of the donors.

INFOPlease claims super PACs are the cause of new political action committees altering the course of political campaigns.

CNN states that, unlike the candidates, the real danger is that no accountability is required of the super PACs. Further, their negative advertising skewers the legislative process in Congress in favor of special interests, influencing -- perhaps buying -- the election. In addition, this attack advertising allows the benefiting candidates to spend less and remain in the race longer.

Thus, super PAC spending can corrupt the process, making candidates obliged to favoritism and leading to undeserved earmarks, etc.

Anonymous, unlimited donations do not serve the best interests of ethical government, our Constitution or the freedom our democracy promises. Super PACs need be eliminated. Speak out!

Earle Everett

This story was originally published February 6, 2016 at 9:57 PM with the headline "Letter: Super PACs not healthy for nation."