Letters to the editor can be submitted by sending an email to tuletters@timesunion.com or completing this form. See our guidelines on letters.

Americans may be getting their voices back. The protests across the country on June 14 were evidence of a people who seem disconnected, confused, and angry at the president, the cabinet, Congress, and the Supreme Court and have begun to band together and protest. The power of the people will be the only way change can occur because the administration has been poisoned by President Donald Trump and his billionaire friends. Change within the government is questionable because too many leaders have bought into the corruption.

All humanity wants a place to belong. The MAGA group was feeling betrayed and left behind. They heard Trump’s promises of being their savior. They drank his poison and sold their souls. He made them feel as though they belonged. And belonged they did, only to find he has betrayed them. There is some buyer’s remorse.

Now Americans are protesting. Having felt left behind and powerless, we, the people, are beginning to collectively say, “No more, Mr. Trump.” It is estimated more than 6,000 stood in peaceful protest around the Capital Region on June 14. Young and old stood up for peace, justice, and integrity. There is a growing sense that the Trump administration is the most corrupt in American history. We must use the power of numbers to turn the ship around and bring this administration under control.

Gathering as one mass and speaking truth to power, we can win. Our movement is called “We, the people.” Now, people, let's get to work.

Published June 30, 2025

The problem with George F. Will’s piece on campaign finance regulation is that he glosses over the essential danger of unlimited political contributions: the campaign contributions are more than protected speech; they are the purchase of political influence ("Court can back free speech in ruling," June 16). He carefully avoids the question of how to distinguish between a campaign contribution and a bribe, which is, IMHO, the central question.

The frantic waving of the First Amendment “protected speech” banner is just a distraction from the bribery question. The protection of speech under the First Amendment is not absolute. The government has a compelling interest in protecting the integrity of elections and the conduct of elected officials from undue influence. That’s where the need for regulation of the flow of money to officials comes to bear.

If Will and others concerned about protected speech were equally concerned about bribery, they might find a way to deal with the undue influence issue. For example, we could allow unlimited contributions by anyone into a candidate’s campaign, but anonymously. That would........

© Times Union