Argument: Spending limits protect voter voices from being priced-out
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Karen Finney. Democratic consultant and commentator; former spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, wrote in a January 24, 2010 Washington Post piece: "In a decision that supposedly ruled on the side of free speech, the court actually put a price tag on that speech. A price tag that could result in the voices of individual Americans being priced out of their ability to actually be heard, as millions of dollars from multinational corporations can now be spent to tip the scales in an American election."
Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wis) wrote in a January 24, 2010 article in the Washington Post: "Because of the scope of the Citizens United decision, it will take close examination to see what can be done to restore the voice of the average citizen in elections. We must not stand by as corporations threaten to dominate our democratic process. If the race in Massachusetts showed us anything, it's the power of voters. In our democracy, that power ¿ not the power of corporate wealth ¿ should decide our elections."
Anna Burger. Secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union. Wrote in a January 24th, 2010 piece in the Washington Post: "The five-justice majority might think that the interests of corporations outweigh women and men who work, but our 2.2 million members are not going to sit idly by and watch working people get sidelined. Unions like ours are here to give a voice to working people. We do it through our nurses', janitors' and security officers' voluntary contributions. Repeat: voluntary. You're talking about people who make $12 an hour choosing to give part of their paycheck to give voice to their political concerns. There is no comparison between that worker and a corporation that will funnel their shareholders' money straight to a campaign's coffers."