E. J. Dionne Jr. [“The court’s catastrophe,” op-ed, Feb. 6] seemed so exercised by what he believes the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case concluded that he ignored what it did and did not do. It did not, for example, have anything to do with the ability of “the brute force of millionaires and billionaires” such as Sheldon Adelson to spend their money to support candidates they favor. That right of all, rooted in the First Amendment, was sustained as far back as the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1976 in Buckley v. Valeo, which upheld the right of individuals to make independent expenditures in political campaigns as they choose. Does Mr. Dionne not recall the privately funded, if odious, Swift Boat advertisements in 2004 or the vast expenditures of George Soros?
Mr. Dionne bemoaned the supposed impact of Citizens United in facilitating the efforts of those who have sought to disguise a donor’s identity. He should recall that the Supreme Court, in Citizens United, upheld by an 8 to 1 vote the constitutionality of the disclosure requirements adopted by Congress. If more are needed (and I agree that they are), that rests with Congress, not the court.