Campaign Spending and Special Interests

The article, “Most City Incumbents Opt Out of Spending Limits” (Nov. 29), quoted a campaign consultant as saying about public campaign funds that “it just didn’t feel right.” I am upset that evidently he does feel right about taking money from corporations and special interests that will be expecting favors at taxpayer expense. To paraphrase the governor: The money comes in and the favors go out.

The campaign consultant goes on to say, “There is no question he can raise the money he needs for the race.” As a voter, it upsets me that [incumbent Los Angeles City Councilman] Jack Weiss is so confident of being able to trade policy and taxpayer dollars for campaign contributions. I prefer politicians who earn support from a majority of voters rather than a few rich special interests.

Bill Walzer

Berkeley

*

This article highlights the need for public campaign financing that compensates candidates who opt in for the difference between what they can receive and spend, and what their special-interest-funded opponents (who opt out) receive and spend.

For a candidate to run in such a “clean money” system is an essential public service, not a taxpayer burden. The cost is minuscule, and elected officials who don’t owe favors to special interests after the election are invaluable. Such systems are now successfully being used in Arizona and Maine, and are up for consideration in California in January. Clean money means fair elections.

Craig Dunkerley

San Jose