We need to know the flaws of the people we elect

In Congressman Jim McDermott’s op-ed, “Counteracting the super PACs” [Opinion, Jan. 30], he incorrectly presents the issue. The previous campaign regulations were blatantly unconstitutional, and had the power to ban books, blogs, and just about anything.

Individuals have the right of free speech and free assembly guaranteed by the Constitution, and they do not lose freedom of speech when they choose to pool their resources into organizations.

Citizen’s United, whatever you think about their views, is a nonprofit that represents every organization in America that wants to make its voice heard.

Anonymous free speech is just as protected, and forcing Americans to disclose their identities to engage in political speech harms the ability for “people to express political ideas ... without fear of government intimidation or public retaliation” (EPIC, from Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton, 2002).

Speech is only speech. Americans are not mindless drones, and there is nothing wrong with trying to persuade; no one is forced into a worldview by watching a 30-minute-documentary about how adulterous Newt Gingrich is.

And if we’re deciding who to put in office for the next four years, why shouldn’t we know all their flaws?

— Ian McLaughlin, Seattle

We should amend the Constitution

Congressman Jim McDermott’s op-ed illuminates the prime cause of the debilitating dysfunction we suffer in our political process — money in politics.

In 2000, about $3.8 billion was spent on the electoral process and it continues to grow; $4.6 billion in 2004, $5.2 billion in 2008 and projected to be well over $6 billion in 2012.

For over 145 years, attempts have been made to reform or control money in politics — all have failed, been ruled unconstitutional in whole or in part, or have been circumvented by clever lawyers. Clearly, one viable, enduring corrective measure remains; that is, amend the Constitution, as proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, getmoneyout.com and other groups around the country.

Amending the Constitution is challenging, as it should be, but has been done many times. This amendment will, of necessity, not come from a dysfunctional Congress — it must come from the people, as it did with the repeal of Prohibition.

It took about 12 years, but, in 1932, a groundswell of concern from citizen groups convinced Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Democrats to take up the mantel.

They did then and we need to do that now. We do not have 12 years.

— Dave Stromquist, Tacoma

We should change tax laws

Congressman Jim McDermott is absolutely correct about the need to limit the huge amounts of corporate moneys being spent to influence our government.

There is a simple way to do this but Congress won’t do it because members of Congress are also recipients of corporate largesse. Congress could simply change tax laws so that moneys spent by corporations to influence politics and governance would be charged to owners equity — not to accounts that flow through to the costs of the goods or services that are paid for by us, their customers.

After all, individuals and small-business owners must take money out of their own pockets to influence politics and politicians. So should big business. Congress could do it. But don’t hold your breath.

— Sam Dunlap, Olympia