To the editor:As part of the campaign to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, Jessica A. Levinson continues a sad academic tradition of starting in the middle. (“Why shouldn’t California voters get to weigh in on Citizens United?,” Op-Ed, LA Times, Aug. 14)Of course there is “big spending to influence campaigns,” but the cure lies not in denying freedom of speech to the spenders but in eliminating the reason for such spending. And that reason: too much government power, the power to regulate and the power to hand out tons of money and other favors.Were government restricted to its proper function (protecting our lives, liberty and property), neither wealthy individuals nor groups would have much to gain by influencing elections. Limiting government to its proper function wouldn’t eliminate all influence peddling and corruption, but it would remove the major incentive to influence elections.Michael Berliner
Latest
- No Free Market: Government Intevention in American Medicine
- Bezos: Washington Post Will Change Course To Defend Free-Markets
- Justin Amash on Birthright Citizenship: Only an Article V Amendment Can Change It
- Second January 6, 2021 Report
- Leonard Peikoff: Anti-Trumpites for Trump
- The Rheins Act
- The Woke Comprachicos
- J6 | Transcripts Show President Trump’s Directives to Pentagon Leadership to “Keep January 6 Safe” Were Deliberately Ignored
- Catching up With Leonard Peikoff
- New York’s Skyline and The Sublime