To the editor:

George Will’s attack on the For the People Act for ignoring the Constitution (June 3) is disingenuous on two counts. Most of his argument that its provisions violate the First Amendment are based on the unstated proposition that campaign contributions are speech, a dubious equation for many of us submillionaires. True, it was instituted by the Supreme Court (Buckley v. Valeo, 1976) and upheld since (e.g., Citizens United v. FEC, 2010), but it is still being challenged in court and Congress, currently by the FTP Act. If it is eventually sustained as “settled law,” may we hope that the same consideration will apply to the constitutional status of Roe v. Wade (1973), which is older and more thoroughly litigated.

Will questions why the Democrats push FTP if, “…as [they] rightly insist, the voting … was without significant malfeasance.” He answers with “All laws regulating campaigns are enacted by people with … interests in advantaging themselves and disadvantaging challengers.” This manifestly applies to the 389 (and counting) laws introduced by Republicans in 48 states aimed at suppressing voter turnout, preferentially by under-served citizens. Will totally ignores this possible motivation, although the repression campaign is hardly subtle, as well as the corollary question: Is it nobler to enable or to suppress the vote?

Paul Enos,

Lawrence