I, like many of you, am tired of all the political ads that stretch the truth and/or are just incorrect to start with. I read Pam Wilmots’s letter to the editor (Sept. 14) with interest. She asks voters to vote in favor of “a constitutional amendment to affirm that 1) corporations do not have the same constitutional rights as human beings and 2) Congress and the states have the ability to limit the independent expenditures that are so corrupting to the political process. The health of our democracy depends on it.”
My question is, who decides? Does this mean that a pro-life legislature can block pro-choice nonprofit corporations from putting money into an election? Does this mean that an anti-environmental legislature can block pro-environment nonprofit corporations from putting money into an election? Does this mean that if you and I pool our resources on some Harvard issue and form a corporation, our thoughts and money can be blocked by some political body?
If such an amendment passes, why would the Supreme Court not overturn it? After all, they already ruled on the issue; corporations have a right to free speech just like people do and can contribute any amount to anyone they like. We may not like the ads, but they have a right to free speech.
It seems to me that communism has failed and that we should not try to legislate free speech restrictions into a constitution just because we may not agree with a Supreme Court decision.
Please join me in voting “no” for both this amendment and against any legislator who supports it. “The health of our democracy depends on it.”
Joe Dzekevich
Withington Lane
