To the editor,

In a recent letter to The Thistle, a writer expressed his opinion that the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United was “correct.” But clearly this decision, which unleashed an unprecedented flow of money into politics, remains in dispute, as it was at the time when four of the nine judges dissented.

Writing for the minority, Justice John Paul Stevens represented a longstanding legal tradition that distinguished between “natural persons,” or human beings, and “artificial persons” such as corporations. The 14th Amendment cited by The Thistle writer, which was passed in the wake of the abolition of slavery, grants legal protection of the law to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States.” Thus, many constitutional scholars believe it should not apply in all instances, such as political campaign spending, to “artificial persons.”

In any case, the point of a constitutional amendment that would allow for the regulation of campaign spending is to establish clarity on this issue. Therefore, I encourage the citizens of McFarland to vote “yes” on the advisory referendum that is on the April 3 ballot.

Margaret Adams

McFarland

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.