Cloudy
69°
Cloudy
Hi 84° | Lo 66°

Letter: Let’s return to a government for the people

The U.S Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision allows corporations to spend unlimited money to influence public election resulting in corporate interests taking precedence over the interests of the public. Citizens United threatens both public health and our democracy: for the people, by the people.

Unfortunately, in the United States, corporations have a long history of making public health a non-priority as they promote the sale and use of unsafe and often dangerous products. Citizens United is the biggest threat yet to the well-being of our citizens. Eliminating asbestos and lead paint, motor vehicle safety standards, tobacco warning labels, food and pharmaceutical safety are all things that would not have occurred in the presence of Citizens United. Corporations are already in the wallets of our politicians as demonstrated by the passage of H.R. 933, which protects corporations from liability associated with selling products without adequately investigating their safety. Do we really want them to have more influence?

As a nurse, I have applauded those hospitals that have banned free lunches from pharmaceutical companies. As consumers, we expect our health-care providers to make decisions based on our best interest, not on the incentives they receive from drug companies. Shouldn’t we expect the same from our legislators?

HCR 2 is a resolution in the New Hampshire Legislature to support a constitutional amendment to re-establish the authority of the states and Congress to regulate campaign spending. In the interest of public safety and of our democracy, let’s demand that our legislators pass this resolution. It is the first step in returning to a government for the people.

BARBARA McELROY

Rumney

SETTLED LAW 100% since the days of the 1800's .....Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company 1886......Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause granted constitutional protections to corporations as well as to natural persons, dito in Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, have recognized that corporations were entitled to some of the protections of the Constitution....Obama himself has the largest PAC walking but liberals wont mention that

This is lame. I'm arguing with people about SCOTUS decisions that don't even know the SCOTUS decision made a few months ago. Or pertaining to what state, or why. Yet I need to go back to 1907 and the Tillman Act. I know how the SCOTUS ruled in CU and I know why. It makes sense to me. I also know why they reversed the Montana Supreme Court decision. It makes sense to me. It's free speech..and thank God too, because I don't see a future where the 4th estate is going to play by the rules.

And imagine, these are the folks that say nothing about Obama usurping the power of the Congress, signing highly restrictive executive orders and over reaching. Progressives don't like CU because it stands in their way of steamrolling the rest of us.

"Montana? For crying out loud, even Wyoming doesn't read Montana court decisions for precedent." Does Wyoming read SCOTUS court decisions, specifically ones that reverse Montana Supreme Court rulings on campaign finance? Are you intentionally being obtuse here? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/us/supreme-court-declines-to-revisit-citizens-united.html

Unfortunately, corporations are people. The best interest of the people of a corporation may lie in government not hindering the ability of that company to prosper. Take the oil industry for instance. In North Dakota, people are thriving due to the large amount of oil that we are sitting on and government is stopping us from utilizing. It is estimated that what we have in this country now dwarfs what is left in the Middle East. Yet, government stands in the way, influenced by people who contribute to the other side....environmentalist groups, unions, PACS, etc. Do you doubt that the hundreds of thousands of people who work for EXXON or Sunoco or BP are not in support of their employer speaking for them with campaign contributions? We allow unions to set up ponzi scheme, money laundering donations to officials. The reason why people are complaining is that finally the playing field is being leveled and progressives just can't have that.....nope......they are on track, on target and marching like the North Korean military on May Day to reach their Utopian goals. Well, progressives on here tell us that Roe v. Wade is "settled law"; utilizing that logic it fall into line that "Citizens United" is also "settled law"!

Citizens United is settled law. Just like Roe V Wade. Or not..well maybe. Ok, its only settled law if you agree with it. Well, maybe.

GW clearly has no idea what the phrase "settled law" means. One SCOTUS decision does not settled law make. On the other hand the roughly hundred years of legislative, judicial and regulatory practice that Citizens United tossed in the trash bin was precisely what "settled law: is all about.

You are 100% off on the amount of SCOTUS decisions. Montana decision reaffirmed.

Montana? For crying out loud, even Wyoming doesn't read Montana court decisions for precedent. GW, I strongly suggest you take a few hours and read the history of limitations on corporate campaign contributions. You might start with the 1907 Tillman Act. And the fact remains one SCOTUS decision, Citizens United, undid a century of "settled law."

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.