ShareThis Page

Amendment levels playing field

| Friday, July 25, 2014, 8:57 p.m.

In his July 12 column ( “Dems flawed ‘amendment'” ), Byron York claimed the proposed constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics currently advancing in the Senate would “vastly increase the power of Congress to control elections and political speech.” He called it “deeply troubling.”

But the amendment is not about Congress controlling speech; it's about restoring everyday Americans' ability to have a meaningful say in who is elected to represent them by undoing the damage of Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United. It's about getting a handle on the money flooding our elections so that political speech is for all of us, not just those who can give thousands to super PACs.

What Americans actually find “deeply troubling,” to borrow York's words, is not the amendment but the enormous influence of corporations and billionaires. Today, wealthy interests can spend limitless sums of money to influence our elections. It's not surprising that more than 7 in 10 voters believe our elections are “biased in favor of the candidate with the most money,” and a whopping 9 in 10 want our elected leaders to help lessen money's influence on elections.

Through the proposed amendment, that's just what our elected leaders are doing.

Jodi Hirsh

Pittsburgh

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.