I think it's good to discuss issues of fair elections, and how to have a free and open debate of issues. I also think it's ideal if people think for themselves, and consider all sides of the issues to come to their own decision. However, I think it's a dangerous path to start cutting off free flow of information, just because we don't agree with the opinion expressed. The most obvious example of this is the effort that some political leaders have to embrace the so-called "fairness" doctrine -- which is really just an effort to shut off lively talk radio that is popular with many who conflict with the opinions of many of the elected leaders.

Money buys advertising to inform people. News media cater to their advertisers and often popular prejudice. Distortion of facts is all around. When people "face-to-face" talk, they distort facts. Most people think of themselves as "honest" and doing "right" in expressing their opinions. It's dangerous to try to control this for the benefit of special interests. In the end, democracy requires that voters sort this out for themselves. I say let opinions flow freely -- the city government officials have other duties to take of that trying to shut off the free flow of open debate in politics, based on their own opinions of what is fair. Money is not the problem of corruption in politics and voting, but the people who misuse it. Controlling people's expression is a threat to free society.

Mr. Wojahn, your reason for College Park taking a position on a constitutional issue is wrong. Your claim is based on the emotionally-charged assertion that "a developer or a group of wealthy individuals [nmight] take over the City." This is a straw man argument, completely irrelevant to the issue arising out of Citizens United, namely, the personhood of corporations.

First, let me demonstrate why your assertion is both unsupported and impossible. As it stands, the City of College Park drastically limits campaign contributions from individuals. Under Section 34-14(D)(2), "it shall be a violation ... for any individual or political committee to make contributions or expenditures of money or thing(s) of value with a total value greater than $250." In other words, your feared takeover by "a developer or a group of wealthy individuals" is extremely unlikely (unless, I suppose, if it were a really large group of wealth individuals).

Second, you ignore the part of the ordinance that, under Citizens United, is potentially unconstitutional. Section 34-14(C) states that "[i]t shall be a violation . . . for any business entity to make direct contributions or expenditures." In other words, College Park has denied the right of free speech to persons as described in Citizens United.

Rather than focus on straw-man arguments and non sequiturs, I think you'd be better served by justifying College Park's position as defending one of its ordinances through the political arena.

I might be concerned about this in any other jurisdiction, but in this city, county, and state where council and representatives are rarely challenged, there is one-party rule, and there has not been a public referendum in nearly 30 years, is this really a threat? Sorry to be cynical, but maybe this would put some challenges in the elections and introduce real debate.

Nick - that's exactly my point. Under the strained reasoning and logic of Citizens United, the provisions of College Park's campaign finance rules that limit expenditures by corporations are at risk of legal challenge. You acknowledge yourself that the holding in Citizens United puts these provisions at risk of being found unconstitutional. And that's exactly the reason why a possible takeover by corporations is possible.

Lee - I would agree with you if everyone had equal access to the means of communication, but when money buys media and most people don't have the money to buy media, only the opinions of those who can afford it "flow freely."

Mr. Wojahn, your letter does not make that point when you are trying to justify a municipality taking a position on a constitutional issue. Instead of mentioning corporations or 34-14(C), you chose a more emotional appeal, raising the possibility of wealthy individuals undertaking some financial coup of the city council.

This is an issue individual citizens should take up with their US Representative and Senators individually. The city should remain uninvolved in this issue. If the city council and the mayor want to do this, do it as individual citizens, not as a mouthpiece for the citizens.

What does this have to do with the city? I suppose the city council now will make votes for me at the state or federal level based on what "they" think? Guess there is no reason to even vote in state or federal elections since the council will just voice our opinions for us in aggregate.

I think it actually makes sense College Park has taken this step - in the past, when judges on the Supreme Court overreached and people had to exercise their right to amend the constitution, those efforts began at the city and state level. Many other cities have taken this step, and it's starting to have an impact - there are now 12 amendment proposals to address money in politics in Congress. As to whether money in politics matters at the local level; whether it's a bad thing - I can't believe people think that more money = more information. The restrictions on this kind of corporate (and union) political spending were put in place nearly 100 year ago, when the Vanderbilts and other robber barons literally were buying canadidates. Whne you look at campaign contributions and Super PAC spending, its fair to say we're nearly there again - only this time the packaging is much more subtle and sophisticated. Kudos to the city council for joining other cities in taking this first step

Congratulations to College Park for passing this motion on Tuesday, as we did in Greenbelt on Monday. I see a different reason for the City Council taking a position. It is a message to our legislators in Annapolis. They also plan to take a positon on this issue, to send a message to our legislators in DC. Many city councils, schools, and organizations are taking a position on this topic, to bring it to public attention. Ultimately, if this becomes a constitutional amendment, I believe it will require ratification by 2/3 (or is it 3/4?) of all states. If 2/3 (or 3/4) of states pass a resolution in favor of overturning Citizen's United NOW . . it is a good indication that when the amendment comes back to them for a vote LATER, they will vote to pass it.

Again, thanks to College Park and Greenbelt City Council for being willing to be the trend setters.

Lore: How well you put it! I have seen polls that show that huge majorities (both genders, both parties) are against the right of "corporations being people" to infuse huge amounts of money in the elections that the Supreme Court unleashed two years ago with the Citizens United decision.

I agree and thank the College Park and Greenbelt City Councils for being willing to be the trend setters

This is an extremely important issue that should be challenged and changed. It seems to me to be another example of de(dis)regulation that will undermine our democratic process, such as it is. I am not sure that I understand if this would (could) have an impact on our local, county and state elections. I would love to understand more about this. However, I believe that working to change this legislation (and the Supreme Court if possible) is critical. I hope that the election processes going on now will get the country thinking about these influences in our electorial processes. I support this effort wholeheartedly! Nan Roche

Aren't most cities corporations? If so, isn't it hyprocritical to get involved in lobbying government on behalf of a city? Seems likes in your eyes its ok for cities to be like people but not actual commercial companies. More of the same.

The process that our City is following, along with other cities and states, is one of the ways that Constitutional Amendments are initiated. This is a governmental process, not called "lobbying." I am grateful that cities and states have this peaceful democratic established method of expressing my wishes.

For me, the Citizens United decision has meant that I now use large amounts of energy daily to advocate for health care, education, clean energy, protected environment. Why spend time on this? Because corporations flood money to elected officials who then give them favors which keep me, my friends, my community from being heard by our representatives. For example, “Bag It” will pass because many of us expend gigantic amounts of time to make it pass - while the opposing plastics corporation is flooding money to elected officials to buy their vote to oppose “Bag It.” Every day my energy is expended on right things that the corporations are opposing through their unlimited (and undisclosed) funding of the election process. I'd rather be using my energy to practice Spanish with 6th graders. I do not want 6th graders to have to wait while I spend my time advocating for our needs and to overrule Citizens United. Even the 6th graders know corporations are not people but are allowed by the Citizens United ruling to buy our elected representatives. So I, as their teacher, use my energy to support a Constitutional Amendment to overrule the Citizens United decision.