With respect to the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, Ben Myers [letter to the editor, Oct. 26] makes a good point on the unintended effects; foreign corporations like Citgo can now make political contributions and also air their opinions via TV and radio ads. This is a double-edged sword. While many folks, including myself, are tired of hearing these ads, they do create revenue and U.S. jobs in the media industry. In addition, Citgo is the only oil company to give Joe Kennedy’s oil distribution company free oil for the needy here in New England. Not one U.S. oil company donated.
In my view, unintended effects are my main objection to the proposed Constitutional amendment. It is like a shotgun blast instead of a rifle shot. In trying to eliminate corporate influence on elections, the amendment catches all for-profit business (except the press), including small businesses.
Let’s take an example. Let’s say all of the local apple growers decide to create a small business for-profit “Subchapter-S” co-op. They build a building and buy equipment that can be shared and drill a well for water. Then let’s say a new sewer treatment plant is targeted to be built next door that needs voter approval for various zoning and bylaw changes. The unintended effect of the amendment is that the local for-profit co-op does not have a right to free speech if the amendment should pass. Neither do any of the for-profit individual farm Subchapter-S corporations. The apple farmers have to use their own individual resources to run TV ads with their position or they must form a new nonprofit corporation to end-around the amendment in order to run their opinion ads.
I am voting “no” on Question 4 in that I do not approve of a Constitutional amendment that is a shotgun blast that has unintended effects on small business instead of a rifle shot aimed at the problem at hand. Just do what I do. I ignore and do not believe any of the ads. They are just wasting money in my view—as is their current right to do so.
Joe Dzekevich
Withington Lane
