I was waiting for a Ledger editorial about the Publix-Putnam controversy. On May 31 it appeared. It covered almost everything, including the word “ilk” when referring to those advocating for the students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

What the editorial did not mention was the possible quid pro quo between Publix and Adam Putnam. When several Publix stores were found to have health violations, the rules were changed by the Department of Agriculture, headed by Putnam.

Could all of those contributions have had anything to do with those changes? Changes that were not made before the Publix violations. Other mentioned contributors to Putnam’s campaign are irrelevant unless they also received “favors” in return.

Painting Adam Putnam with the good ole homegrown boy image is a longtime political ploy. Does it matter who the “good” applies to?

Marilyn B. Signer, Lakeland