Campaign Contributions

Congratulations on your series on campaign contributions and political favors (“Big Business, Big Bucks,” Sept. 21-23). We are told that all that the donor wants is “access.” That is just political doublespeak for “action.” Are the American people so naive as to believe that the money does not speak louder than their individual votes?

If Sen. Fred Thompson’s committee had the guts to follow up on your articles, it would attract much more public interest. At least you have pointed the way. Now we have the best president and Congress that money can buy. Only by fully exposing what campaign contributions can buy will the present corrupt system be changed.

JAMES R. CHRISTIANSEN

Santa Barbara

* Eighteen legitimate CEOs representing 18 legitimate companies paid $600,000 for a private dinner with the president to discuss legitimate concerns about upcoming legislation (Sept. 22). Why?

Could not these same CEOs have made a telephone request for an appointment with the president in the Oval Office to discuss their concerns? When donations of money to the president and to his political party are added to this equation, then it becomes very evident that buying the president is now considered a fair business practice. Whatever happened to the old belief that access to the president was an equal opportunity for all the people--not just for those with the most money?

GEORGE BERKOWITZ

Chino

* Your series about corporate involvement in political fund-raising has been excellent.

The only question I have involves the information that corporate donations totaled only 6% of the $2 billion spent in the last federal election cycle (Sept. 21). Six percent is not much, and the question immediately arises as to where the other 94% came from. I’d appreciate it if you could break down these figures. We need to identify the whole spectrum of political contributors, whether they be corporations, unions, individuals or foreign agents!

JENNIFER MARKS

Irvine

* The Thompson hearings finally produce a witness who testifies that campaign solicitations were made in the White House in the presence of the president and The Times thinks that the story is worth only a few words buried in another story on A14 (“Reno Adds Staff to Donor Probe; Hearing Delayed,” Sept. 17)? C’mon folks, we’re talking about the corruption of our political process here. Surely it deserves at least as much attention as the death of a princess.

RON LUTEY

Camarillo

* Current campaign laws allow and even compel much activity that pulls politicians away from the best interests of the people they are supposed to represent. I can’t feel any passion to condemn those who step over arbitrary lines into technical illegality. The problem is the system and the desperate, frenzied competition it generates to raise the most money. Members of both parties behave cynically. The few who exert personal responsibility and refuse to play all the games are viewed as politically suicidal crackpots.

Both parties must stop the sniping at the latest to get caught at excess and work together to reform the whole system, which has allowed a free-market mentality to severely deform our democracy.

SANDRA GARBER

Los Angeles

* The excessive influence of the mighty dollar has been a scourge upon the American election process for decades. Aggressive campaign reform is the answer. Prosecuting President Clinton and Al Gore for their participation is tantamount to killing the messenger when you don’t like the message.

SUNNY KREIS

Santa Monica

* I just don’t get it. If you have your office and residence in the same building, where are you expected to make efforts to keep your job? Go across the street and make calls? The hypocrisy and maliciousness of the Clinton detractors have now risen to a new level. But people who try hard to draw blood almost invariably end up drawing their own.

TAYO A. POPOOLA

Los Angeles