Regarding the April 3 front-page article “Conservatives make their mark”:

The Supreme Court’s analysis overturning overall campaign contribution limits was simplistic. Accepting for the sake of argument that money is a form of free speech, the court ignored that our political representatives have only a finite amount of time and resources to respond to those of us who require their attention. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was wrong when he characterized the purpose of campaign finance laws as “to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others.” Rather, these laws were enacted not to enhance the influence of some but to maintain the ability of the many to have their voices heard.

In other words, the court’s latest decision accomplishes exactly what the chief justice claims to abhor: It enhances the free speech rights of the wealthy and restricts the free speech rights of the many who cannot afford to donate millions.

Bruce N. Shulman, Silver Spring

●

The Supreme Court has ruled, again, that limiting spending in support of political candidates is an unconstitutional restraint of free speech. Those decisions are puzzling and deeply discouraging.

First, it is curious that conservative justices, who on most occasions argue vigorously for strict constructionism and fidelity to the intent of our Founding Fathers, believe the authors of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights imagined the principle that spending money is a form of speech. Second, one can only be dismayed by the widespread and quite possibly correct assumption that overwhelming financial resources guarantee victories in the electoral system and dominance of those with deepest pockets.

One could argue that it is up to the voters to speak truth to power at the ballot box or that votes influenced by unlimited paid political advertising are nonetheless expressions of views held by those who cast them. But voters, speaking through elected representatives in Congress and the president, have expressed the view that limiting campaign contributions is appropriate and desirable, only to be told by the narrowest of majorities on the Supreme Court that those views don’t count.

Jim Fey, Wheaton

●

As a naturalized U.S. citizen, I am deeply worried about the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon v. FEC decision. I have always believed that ordinary citizens could make a difference in the politics of this country, much more so than anywhere else in the world. However, now that wealthy donors can call the shots based on such large amounts of money donated to political parties and candidates, I wonder what is the point of citizen engagement in politics? The maximum I can donate, in a good year, is about $200. What is that going to buy me? Besides, why should money even influence who will be elected? Are principles, good ideas and sound policies just a thing of the past? Shame on the Supreme Court for undermining the rights of ordinary people to meaningfully participate in our own democratic process.

Beatrice M. Spadacini, Silver Spring