Letter to the editor: ‘Big Money’ analysis misconstrued argument

Now I get it. Until I read Joyce Denn’s recent letter to the Bulletin (“Dayton, unions look out for Minnesota’s middle class,” June 20), I thought leftists generally had taken a firm and principled stand, objecting to the supposedly corrosive effects of Big Money in American politics. Now I think that I know better.

Denn’s letter suggests, au contraire, that Big Money is good when it is being spent on behalf of candidates and causes dear to her heart and to hearts of her “progressive” friends. Big Money, it seems, has a baneful influence only when spent on behalf of, you guessed it, “rightist” politicians and policies. But should I have been surprised by Denn’s double standard? Probably not. If we reflect a bit, we should realize that politicians and their followers are quite skilled in their ability to finesse their principles or positions to the extent necessary to meet the challenges of the moment. Denn’s wiggle on the Big Money issue being one example. Another being the typically leftist view that the so-called social issues, because they are “divisive” should be off-limits in the public square. But not leftist class warfare rhetoric. That, it is contended, is not divisive. Go figure.

Denn’s letter also misconstrues most of the points raised by an earlier letter in which the writer, Linda Stanton, stated that unions, public employee unions especially, have quite a bit of Big Money at their disposal. Denn’s response, however, implied something quite different, namely that Stanton had claimed that unions have no right to contribute money to political candidates.

As I recall, Stanton implied no such thing. Rather, she wanted prospective voters to know who is bankrolling whom. And that leftists themselves, their claims to the contrary, are dipping deeply into the Big Money honey pot.

Thomas St Martin - Woodbury

Tags: letters to the editor, opinion, updates