"A direct attack on democracy."
That's how one letter writer describes the U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows corporations and unions to contribute directly to campaign coffers of those running for public office.
Last week's decision by the high court, striking down part of a 2002 campaign finance law, spurred Al Franklin of Auburn to conclude in Thursday's Letters to the Editor that our democracy will now be a government "of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation."
Kuo Liang Yu of Carmichael raises the Constitutional issue of free speech: "It does not guarantee the right of expression of corporations, which are not citizens. They are merely legal entities, not beings."
That's how one letter writer describes the U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows corporations and unions to contribute directly to campaign coffers of those running for public office.
Last week's decision by the high court, striking down part of a 2002 campaign finance law, spurred Al Franklin of Auburn to conclude in Thursday's Letters to the Editor that our democracy will now be a government "of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation."
Kuo Liang Yu of Carmichael raises the Constitutional issue of free speech: "It does not guarantee the right of expression of corporations, which are not citizens. They are merely legal entities, not beings."







