No Section

Readers Write (July 20): Citizens United, Mark Ritchie, military bands, Michele Bachmann

July 21, 2012 at 2:08AM

(Susan Hogan — Associated Press/The Minnesota Star Tribune)

CITIZENS UNITED

Big Money of all stripes undermines individuals

Myles Spicer's July 16 counterpoint ("The Citizens United ruling was truly bad") dealt with only one side of the issue -- corporate influence. But labor organizations also benefit from the tenets of the ruling.

As an educator, I had no choice but to contribute to the union "representing" me. That union, in turn, used my money to support many candidates and issues that I opposed. To use Spicer's example of Target, employees may not believe in what their union dues pay for, and customers may not believe in candidates supported by the union (which ultimately gets its money from customers).

If Spicer would concede that unlimited political contributions from both corporations and unions corrupt, we could agree.

Apparently a constitutional amendment is needed. One that limited contributions to individuals eligible to vote for a particular candidate might just solve the problem of elections being influenced by outside agencies. If I could contribute only to candidates who might appear on my ballot, I could influence my local election but would be powerless in yours, as it should be.

SID RICHISON, EDEN PRAIRIE

* * *

MARK RITCHIE

That was a funny letter, but a serious situation

I can see why the Star Tribune chose to print the July 17 Letter of the Day about Secretary of State Mark Richie's "Orwellian" changes to the title of this year's voter ID ballot question -- proposing similar revisions to famous speeches and proclamations. It was clever and funny.

But I found it to be rich (no pun intended) in light of the endless stream of Republican legislation bearing titles that drive voters to believe the bills do the opposite of what they actually do. Republicans are way ahead of other groups in strategies to throw voters off the real purposes of their proposals. People like political consultant Frank Luntz pioneered these efforts.

All Richie is trying to do is title the ballot question to closer reflect the actual (convoluted) constitutional amendment being put forth. The simple title the Republicans want hardly comes close to the myriad complications -- the many ifs and buts -- that this proposal would entail. Even the definition of what exactly is meant by "photo ID" is totally confusing.

The letter writer's examples are not the language of actual laws. I can appreciate a funny letter, but amending our state Constitution is no joke.

PETER MURPHY, MINNEAPOLIS

• • •

Should the voter ID amendment be approved, it would:

1) Require a government-issued photo ID of all voters, including absentees. (How will that work?)

2) Hamstring election-day registration.

3) Deny regular ballots to registered voters without specified ID or registering at the polls.

Ritchie's language will give voters a clue that more is going on than just requiring a photo ID: "Changes to in-person & absentee voting & voter registration; provisional ballots."

GWEN S. MYERS, MINNETONKA

* * *

BETTY McCOLLUM

Sorry -- military bands aren't where waste is

U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum's July 18 counterpoint "Why military bands, sports links must be cut" was a classic case of political grandstanding. The implication that the United States borrows $4 billion from China to fund military bands is not only utterly false but sheer lunacy.

For McCollum to portray herself as fiscally conservative with her current proposals is beyond belief. The military band budget constitutes six hundredths of 1 percent of the military budget. That is the equivalent of giving up a daily latte next Thursday and bragging about your fiscal restraint.

Our military bands do indeed have a long, proud tradition. Throughout American history, military leaders have placed value on inspiring patriotism, honoring our troops and building morale, which is the mission of our military bands throughout the world. If budget choices are "statements of our values," we must to choose to accept the wisdom of generations of our leaders by continuing to fund military bands effectively.

Fiscal restraint, Rep. McCollum, is an admirable goal. But please do not use our military bands as political fodder. Support our troops and let the bands play on, and I will buy you a latte next Thursday.

WILLIAM HENRY, APPLE VALLEY

* * *

Michele Bachmann

Even for her, this latest attack is beyond the pale

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann's unsubstantiated attacks on Huma Abedin, the longtime aide to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, remind me of Sen. Joseph McCarthy's fear-mongering hearings on Communist subversion in the 1950s.

Similar to Bachmann's tactics, McCarthy repeatedly and without evidence accused a wide variety of people of being subversives.

The beginning of the end of McCarthy's political career occurred when Special Counsel Joseph Welch eloquently voiced during a hearing what countless others likely were thinking: "Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator; you've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

MICHAEL J. PESCH, ST. CLOUD

• • •

Bachmann's attacks against a highly valued member of the State Department are very serious. They should be challenged by other House members based on their own Congressional Code of Conduct. This code states that "the guiding principle of government is that public office is a public trust."

Sending letters to various agencies in an attempt to use those agency resources to promote her unsubstantiated accusations is a direct violation of the code. Her actions -- out of ignorance or, more likely, ineptitude -- are contrary to "conducting your self at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.

ANTHONY MEYER, NORTHFIELD, MINN.