The Star Tribune quotes Stanley S. Hubbard ("The megadonor," Dec. 6) as critical of citizens for not standing up. Many do, but they are overwhelmed by the financial and other resources that people like Mr. Hubbard — the chairman and CEO of Hubbard Broadcasting — and other "megadonors" have, under the odd concept of money being speech. When I think of freedom of speech, I see Norman Rockwell's painting of a working-class citizen speaking in a public meeting and being listened to respectfully. I doubt Rockwell would paint a CEO writing a huge check to a political candidate and title it "freedom of speech." People aren't afraid of having opinions. They are drowned out like a buzzing bee next to a roaring jet. Mr. Hubbard, in the cockpit, can't hear them.
William S. Cordua, River Falls, Wis.
• • •
The Dec. 6 article did an outstanding job of capturing Hubbard's plain-spoken style and deep commitment to the political process. As someone who has worked closely with him on political giving over the years, I do want to clarify one misimpression created by the article. Stanley Hubbard has never asked a candidate to return his contribution should the candidate lose. Rather, Mr. Hubbard requires candidates to return his contribution in the event they either announce they will not seek re-election or otherwise drop out of a race while they still have money in their campaign account. He believes it should be up to the donor — not the former candidate — to decide what should be done with the contribution once the candidate is no longer a candidate. It is a perfectly fair and reasonable position.
David A. Jones, Plymouth
• • •
While I do not share Hubbard's political views, I found the story about his interactions with politicians of both parties interesting, and it seemed from the article that he was intelligent and open-minded — until near the end, when the reporter mentioned that Hubbard has called climate change "a scam." I do not know how any intelligent and informed person could make such a charge. I can only infer that he thinks science is "a scam."
Climate change is not "rocket science"; it is basic science, and common sense. Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of combustion of carbon-based fuels, whether wood, coal, gasoline or natural gas. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the population of the Earth has increased by about 6 billion people. Everyone, either directly or indirectly, uses carbon-based fuels. The result is that we have been pouring a lot more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, year by year. How can anyone think that altering the atmosphere will not have consequences for the climate? The altered atmosphere is trapping more heat on land and especially in the oceans.
I have often wondered whether, if carbon dioxide had color or smell (it is colorless and odorless), we would be having this silly debate. If the sky starting changing color or smelling because of increased amounts of carbon dioxide, I suspect the public would be demanding action to reduce it. Alas, that is not the case, so those who want to protect our planet must fight the disinformation campaign and advocate for policies to protect it.
Eric W. Forsberg, Golden Valley
• • •