Can’t buy Barr for $6,000

Letters to the Editor

Can’t buy Barr for $6,000

The Sept. 21 editorial tried to connect Andy Barr to the Wells Fargo scandal because he has accepted $10,500 in campaign contributions from them since 2013. I think it is important that we get the whole story out in the open.

Based on data from OpenSecrets.org, Barr has received $6,000 from Wells Fargo this election cycle. I assume the remaining $4,500 was from a previous election cycle. Sixty senators, representatives and/or candidates seeking office have received more from Wells Fargo than Barr this cycle.

Since he sits on the House Financial Services Committee, I would think he would be at the top of their list instead of the bottom. Everyone selects their own standard of ethics, and if you think the $6,000 Barr received disqualifies him for public office consider Hillary Clinton.

Clinton received $258,000 from Wells Fargo this election cycle, whereas Trump has only received $29,000. Also Bill Clinton received a $200,000 speaking fee from Wells Fargo in 2011.

Your readers are looking forward to your endorsement of Donald J. Trump.

Norman Johnson

Lexington

Comments

Letters to the Editor

Cringe-o-rama: Mitch McConnell, lower standards for nursing home inspections, UK shoe fetish, us. Us?

By Herald-Leader readers

February 15, 2019 04:51 PM

Cringe-worthy McConnell

In opinion pieces in the Herald-Leader and on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Sen. Mitch McConnell has opposed the Democratic Party’s legislation to reform the methods states use for electing members of Congress. He characterizes the bill as an unprecedented power grab by Democrats. He casts himself as a defender of the constitutional rights of state legislatures to prescribe the time, place and manner for holding elections for U.S. senators and members of the House of Representatives. He pledges that he will not let such a bill come before the Senate for a vote (as an aside, how democratic is a system based on procedures that allow one person to block a bill from being considered by the full Senate?).

As a retired University of Kentucky law professor, I cringe that one of our graduates would make an argument that ignores a basic tenet of constitutional interpretation — read the whole sentence/clause. The Constitution, Article I, Section 4, states: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations...”