To the Daily:

Braden Burgess's recent letter to the editor ignored basic facts about procedural rules and the basics of campaign finance law, even in light of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case (Recent U.S. Supreme Court decision protects free speech, 02/08/2010). Ideologically conservative Republicans have a tendency to distrust math and science, since they're just "theory," so it's no surprise that according to their math, 60, not 51, is a majority of the Senate's 100 votes. If 51 votes were required to pass a bill in the Senate, then the vast majority of legislation would have been passed.

For an example you need to look no farther than Sen. Richard Shelby's (R–Ala.) blanket filibuster, an unprecedented move in the Senate, where Shelby blocked every President Barack Obama nominee waiting to be considered by the Senate because Obama is limiting pork-barrel spending to Sen. Shelby's state. This filibuster prevents a candidate from getting a confirmation vote, which means the Republicans now also have a responsibility to govern and not just to obstruct.

Let's talk about how the Citizens United case is really awful. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee allows for unlimited independent expenditures on politics. What most people don't realize is that most American corporations are largely owned by pension funds. For example, Exxon Mobil is 52-percent owned by pension funds — a significant amount of which is from federal, state and local governments. So, when Exxon Mobil now spends freely to obstruct your favorite candidate or your opinion on an issue, they are actually spending your tax dollars to do so. Isn't it also great, though, how under this ruling, a corporation that is primarily foreign-owned can also spend unlimited amounts of money.

I would encourage Congress to act on this, but something tells me that finding that 60th vote in the Senate may not happen.

Andrew Rabenstein
LSA senior