Robb lets Citizen United ruling off a bit too easy

In his column, "Blame McCain-Feingold, not Citizens, for dark money," Robert Robb suggests rich people were pushed out of their comfort zone by campaign-finance laws to seek alternative means of political influence (Opinions, Wednesday).

The idea of rich people sitting idly while political parties and candidates spent their money seems unlikely.

Rich people have always wanted more direct political influence, but it was not McCain-Feingold that hastened attainment of that goal. That desire was fulfilled by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.

Citizens United accomplished the feat of relating money to free speech and removing any possible barriers to the unlimited financial expression of that speech.

The trouble with Citizens United is this: It has created a vacuum where the old rules don't apply and new ones have yet to be created.

It is in this vacuum that dark-money expenditures have exploded. The consequence of Citizens United and the Supreme Court's recent McCutcheon decision is the increased influence of money on the political process.

Any law banning anonymous financial free speech will not be created by politicians; rather, a citizens initiative is the more viable option.

Robb is correct in saying this will be a difficult task. But the goal of that initiative is not to withstand any legal challenge; rather, a legal challenge is most needed.

Only when the Supreme Court rules definitely whether anyone has a right to anonymous financial free speech will this issue be settled.

It should make this decision; after all, it created this problem in the first place.

— Kevin Moler, Tonopah