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 Opinion Stories
- Paul Allen's lasting contributions | Editorial
- The Rich White Civil War
- The editorial board recommends: Yes on I-940 to change law on police use of deadly force
- The Times recommends: Vote no on misleading I-1634, the effort to ban local soda taxes | Editorial
- Immigration rule change would force people to choose between food and family | Op-Ed