|The Lookout Letter to the editor|
|Speak Out!||Send Letters to firstname.lastname@example.org|
October 15, 2020
In erroneously asserting that the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United is the culprit, Mary Marlow destroys the entire premise of her condemnation of Political Action Committees spending, large amounts or small, for the re-election of incumbent City Council members ("OPINION -- Will Special Interest PACs Get Council Incumbents Re-Elected?" October 14, 2020).
Particularly, the Firefighters and City Employees PAC, along with the Police Officers’ PAC, have long been players in Council elections -– well before the Citizens decision.
Consequently, the reality of the political fund-raising sweepstakes is that the challengers simply do not have sufficient broad support to raise significant sums, nor do they have the support of a few wealthy donors to establish an independent expenditures committee in their behalf.
If the challengers are so virtuous and preferable to the voter base of Santa Monica, it would seem that some or many supporters would put their money where their mouth is –- the very purpose of the interplay of speech and money in the political world.
For a tutorial about political organizations and political spending see "Political Money: A Journey into the Land of Hypocrisy" (The Lookout, February 21, 2011).
|Copyright 1999-2020 surfsantamonica.com. All Rights Reserved.|