In response to the Nov. 16 letter
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
To the Editor: Regarding the letter opposing campaign finance caps that was published in the November 16 edition: These laws impose limits and disclosure requirements upon contributions to candidates for public office. The objective is to prevent corporations, which might have a vested interest in legislation, from having outsize influence on elections, and ultimately on those who hold public office.
Far from being a contemporary Democratic Party “ploy,” campaign finance regulations were instituted in the United States in the first decade of the 20th century and have been in place for over 100 years. Since then laws such as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002— commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act—have been enacted to keep the regulations current. The landmark Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission of 2010 ruled these laws violated corporations’ First Amendment rights of free speech. This predicated an enormous increase in expenditures from the private sector, often from undisclosed sources, on campaign advertising. To be clear, no political party or political perspective has a monopoly on the negative, misleading, or outright false messaging that has proliferated since.
The stated rationale for opposition to campaign finance caps is that the media in the U.S. acts as “the communication arm of the Democratic Party while Republican candidate must utilize paid advertising.” There are over 1,000 print media outlets in the U.S.; there are well over 1,000 outlets that broadcast or telecast news. No single individual can claim they know the political perspectives of each and every one of such a large number of sources of news. Watching a variety of cable news channels, as well as looking over social media news feeds, will present polar opposite perspectives on political issues. The same could be said for books appearing on best seller-lists, as well as the hundreds of political podcasts now available.
Moreover, how do we know of the other issues cited such as the extent of illegal immigration if, as asserted, they are not covered in the news?
As evidence of bias, the letter cites that several publications of diverse interests have stated the existence of global warming and, in some cases, its consequences. The nearly universal consensus of the scientific community, data on average global temperatures, as well as stark satellite photos of the melting Arctic Ocean, are overwhelming evidence global warming is occurring, and manmade greenhouse gases are largely the cause. There is no credible “other side.” Refusal to publish such is not evidence of bias, but adherence to long-standing, widely-held journalistic standards of ethics not to intentionally mislead or misinform the audience.
A vast conspiracy among all of the thousands of news outlets, social media sites, book authors and publishers, and podcasters to present the same monolithic bias in their news reporting; and a vast conspiracy among thousands of scientists around the world to promulgate climate change, are not theories, they are absurdities.
Finally, it is alleged The Record-Review discriminates against publishing letters of opposing political perspectives—in a letter published by The Record-Review expressing opposing political perspectives.
Peter Barbella Athens
To the Editor: On November 20, just days after a string of killings at 3 colleges, I awoke to a T.V. report that 5 had been killed, 18 injured at an LGBTQ nightclub.
Later I opened my Sunday newspa- per citing an annual report that 17% or close to 1 in 6 domestic violence deaths occurred in the state of Wisconsin. Another article noted the troubling rates of anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts, attempts and deaths among youth.
By far the highest rates were among LGBTQ youth, many of whom reported feelings of isolation, fear, incidents of bullying and the lack of a trusted adult to talk to at school.
Who in our country, states and towns have significant impact on words and actions that either support or condemn hatred and violence? Among the most influential are politicians and other civic leaders; social media platform owners and T. V. and radio hosts; school board members and school staff; and religious leaders.
During and beyond this holiday season may they and all of us find guidance in three words: Stop the Hate.
Jean Fisher Wausau
