Letters to the Editor for Feb. 3, 2010

Supreme Court gives in to corporations

Who should have more rights in America? A citizen or a corporation?

With the recent decision in the case of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission by the Supreme Court, corporations now have the right to spend as much money as they can to influence elections. The court has held that it is unconstitutional to limit the spending of corporations and unions in any way.

Why is this a problem? Because large companies have massive amounts of money at their disposal, far more than any citizen or political party.

 Exxon-Mobil made a profit of $45 billion dollars in 2008, and if they had been allowed to spend even two percent of that vast amount, they would have easily spent more than both presidential campaigns combined. And it’s not just corporations that can get in on the game, it’s unions too. These groups not only have no spending limits, they also have an unlimited window of time in which to spend money, as they are no longer constrained by limits on when contributions can be made.

For more than a century, since the early political reform movements in the 1900s, Americans have held dear the idea that we should do our best to keep politics free of the corrupting influence of money, especially corporate money. Corporations are not people, they don’t have to adhere to the same responsibilities that we as individuals must. In a society in which we are bombarded by ads every single day from every direction, do we really want to open the door to as many political ads as a company can buy?

Everyone, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, should fear the consequences of this decision. I simply cannot believe that unions and corporations are somehow being denied their voice in the political process, or have too little influence. Call and write Senators Wyden and Merkley, as well as Rep. Walden, and encourage them to pass legislation limiting the damaging impact of this decision. We simply cannot sit back and allow an unlimited flood of corporate money to corrupt our political system.

Elliott Averett

Baker City

Tribal rights predate creation of several states

I am writing in response to the news item in the Jan. 27 newspaper, “Judge: Tribal Hunter was Entitled.”

Judge Baxter, as a citizen, I thank you for your integrity, and ethical interpretation of the law. This could be a landmark decision.

I believe an important factor in the issue of this and similar cases is the question, “How well informed are Fish and Wildlife officers in the treaty rights of tribal citizens?” That so few public defenders, or judges, have the education or experience in treaty law is also a consideration.

Many prolonged cases based on the hunting and fishing rights of tribal citizens now occupy the business of courts and personal lives that, in reality, may not be warranted if treaty rights were fully understood and legally recognized.

It would seem that because treaty lands and rights were originally defined before statehood (Oregon, 1859, Washington and Montana, 1889, Idaho, 1890), the states and their agencies need to define themselves around the treaties, and not the other way around. It would also seem, for example, that the wildlife jurisdictions of the OR/WA/ID triangle might find ways to work more closely together.

Oregon’s Territorial Act of Aug. 14, 1848, declared, “…That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to impair the rights of person or property now pertaining to the Indians in said territory, so long as such rights shall remain unextinguished by treaty between the U.S. and such Indians, or to affect the authority of the government of the U.S., to make any regulation respecting such Indians, their lands, property, or other rights, by treaty, law, or otherwise, which it would have been competent to the government to make if this act had never passed.”

I allow that my statements may be questioned by some readers, and will agree to call them opinion, although I believe my views are based on fact. It is extremely sad and reprehensible that few school textbooks teach the entire truth.

As usual, the principal issue is, What is the right thing to do?

Linda Bergeron

Halfway