The Times was mistaken in opposing Initiative 735 [Opinion, Sept. 30]. I-735 is an incremental first step toward controlling the influence of money in elections. This is the only effective approach to reversing political harms from the Citizens United decision, which The Times has criticized.
Citizens United gutted bipartisan campaign law. The court said corporations and other organizations are “legal persons” like any individual. Now, the more money one has, the more speech one has. Each election since has revealed huge increases in campaign contributions from corporations and the wealthy, given in ways preventing us from knowing the source. No wonder ordinary people think elected officials are not representing their views.
A constitutional amendment is necessary to undo Citizens United — passing a new law isn’t enough. I-735 seeks a request from voters that Congress propose an amendment. If encouraging voters to speak out is “a little bit odd,” as The Times claimed, our democratic process is in worse shape than we think.
Stephen Gockley, Bellingham
Most Read Stories
- Amazon Go cashierless convenience store opens to the public in Seattle VIEW
- Are you ready? Here comes a deluge of rain, snow across Western Washington
- Analysis | Why did the Seahawks move on from Kris Richard as defensive coordinator? A look at the numbers
- All Seattle’s new wealth couldn’t save many homeowners from foreclosure | PNW Magazine
- Amazon Go draws crowds: How does it work? Answers to questions on the new retail store