To the editor:
U.S. Scott Sen. Brown has an ad running where his wife warmly presents him as a man with outstanding family values.
How does that image square with these actions? Didn't actions once speak louder than words?
More than once, he has been asked about his financing.
His responses range from ignoring the question, attacking those who ask, changing the subject, begrudgingly presenting some information but making difficult for reporters to see and then only giving them limited access.
When these questions started being unanswered I wondered if he was trying to hide something.
With such obdurate persistence on his part, the question has now become what is he hiding? How do evasions, attacks on questioners, changing the subject, and refusals to provide full campaign information qualify anyone for being worthy of representing the commonwealth?
Do we not have enough senators heavily sponsored by corporations and billionaires? If he is proud of his donors, why does he not identify them? If he is ashamed of his donors, why has he taken their money?
If his donors are proud of supporting him, why do they not come forward?
If they are ashamed to admit they support him, why are they giving him their money? Then there are the lobbyists. Similar set of questions.
Recently, the Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia wing of the Supreme Court stained the reputation and honor of the court by overturning the Corrupt Practices Act of Montana which limited corporation campaign contributions. Citizens United, (CU) was cited as a major reason, the ruling where the court said it couldn't tell the difference between a corporation and a person.
That must make for some fascinating pillow talk. "Exxon, you look lovely tonight ..."
The lack of a forced disclosure of contributors now makes it possible for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) to do so with impunity.
This seems to have escaped the attention of the justices when they considered the CU ruling.
Does that not put the CU ruling in conflict with the 1970 RICO Act? Does it open the possibility of RICO charges against a candidate?