Steven K. Cochran (Letters, Herald, Feb. 1) overly simplified and misconstrued the implications of the recent Supreme
Court ruling ending limitations of corporate donations to candidates.
The example he provided to me is comical, and if he fails to see the difference between his example and, say, Monsanto
donating $25 million to a candidate's election campaign who will later oppose labeling genetically modified foods, then
it is even more ridiculous than it first appears.
I agree with the Herald's editorial (Jan. 25.) This is not about free speech," but corporate personhood. It is a total
blow to the democracy of this country. The implications are unbelievably horrible now that elections really can be
bought and sold by gigantic corporate powers.
Julie Meadows, Durango