Attempt to bring about any election reform could effectively be deemed to be unconstitutional in the
light of the two recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court. The 2010 decision in the Citizens
United case and the one last week on April 2 in the case of McCutcheon Vs the FEC. Both were a 5 to 4
split decision. Going through the case I was struck by two observations. Justice Scalia said that Super
PACs were raising "big money" than the parties or the candidates themselves and they could sap
the vitality from the national parties. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that he would even go further by
eliminating limits on political monetary contributions altogether. Studying the judgments of the
majority clearly convinced me that the justices would zealously guard "free speech" at any
cost, even at the cost of a possible distortion in the working of our democratic system of governance.
After all the demand for election reform is squarely based on eliminating such a distortion. Does it
mean that our judiciary has no role in helping the nation to follow through on what the Congress did
after the Watergate Scandal in imposing a ceiling of $123,200 on the total amount of money an individual
could give to candidates, parties and political fundraising committees during a two-year election cycle?

According to our Supreme Court, in our system of democracy the exercise of free speech is directly
proportional to the amount of money we can put out during our elections. It is universally acknowledged
by all, that the majority of the population is not those who can even put out the previous limit of
$123,200 which is now lifted. I submit respectfully to the Court what remedy does the majority have in
exercising their fundamental right guaranteed by the First Amendment so zealously guarded and for whom?

V. N. Krishnan
Bowling Green