Your Say: Voters win, big donors lose
Comments from Facebook:
Election results proved that voters are vigilant. They knew that big political donations are an attempt to suppress their fundamental right. The threat is real and worrisome.
Ambrish Reshamwala
This election did not prove that money cannot buy elections just because it did not buy the presidency or some of the Senate seats. It most likely did have an effect of making many of these races closer than they otherwise would have been. And it might very well have turned some of them.
Joseph Pessin
Average large Super PAC donor gave $4.7 million each in election 2012. But that didn't impact the end result.
@asydlow81
A corporation is an association of people. People don't lose their right to free speech just because they are forming an association with others toward a common purpose. That is why restrictions on corporate speech are unconstitutional.
Mathew Andresen
The elections underscore the need to overturn high court's "Citizens United" ruling. Get money out, voters in.
@citizenangela
Do you know what's wrong with this country? It takes less paperwork to start a Super PAC than a business.
@eclecticjay02
Other presidents have been elected by special-interest groups. It happened during the 19th century, 20th century. It failed this time around.
James Rubner
Letter to the editor:
Shill for big money commentary writer Paul Sherman of the Institute for Justice cleverly and deceptively deflects attention to the wrong side in his piece supporting the unfortunate Citizens United ruling ("'Citizens United' didn't kill our democracy after all," The Forum, Monday).
Republicans and Democrats raised obscene amounts of money for this election cycle. As a Democrat, I am so pleased that big donors Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers and others spent their millions with miserably little result. The danger from big money comes from those who invested in the winners. I do want the best government, just not the best that money can buy.
Carlos Gutierrez; Monrovia, Calif.