Campaign Fund Reform Bill

* Re “How Much Scandal Is Needed?” editorial, May 14:

The main scandal of our campaign finance system is the constant exchange of campaign cash and special favors between deep-pocketed special interests and elected officials--not whether this money is of foreign or domestic origin. The integrity of our democratic system is compromised far more by the unlimited private cash politicians now need to raise--more than $2 billion in the last election--than by the couple of million from overseas sources given to the Democrats and the Republicans.

What’s needed is a complete overhaul of the campaign finance system that gives candidates a way to run for office without relying on any private, special-interest money in the first place. Last fall, Maine’s voters established such a “clean money” system. In Washington, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) and others are introducing such legislation. Give candidates who swear off all private fund-raising and agree to abide by spending limits an adequate source of disinterested funds.

MICAH L. SIFRY, Senior Analyst

Public Campaign, Washington

* Your call for “passing the McCain-Feingold bill now” is a perfect example of the press not doing its homework and our rampant “immediate gratification” malady. When asked by a congressional committee what it would take to regulate the McCain-Feingold bill, an official of the Federal Election Commission replied “the Pentagon.” The FEC does not have the funds to regulate existing campaign rules, so adding more makes no sense.

Legislation that eliminates restrictions on the amount of individual contributions and calls for full disclosure makes much more sense. Political opponents along with an active press would handle the miscreants. There is legislation of this type now being discussed.

ALAN B. UNGAR

Calabasas

* Right on! Congress needs to debate the McCain-Feingold bill now! The voters want campaign reform; they want a voice in the actions of Congress. At this point, the only voice belongs to corporations and wealthy individuals.

Congress won’t hear your voice or heed your wishes unless the individual members feel pressure from their constituents. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) put forth the bipartisan effort. Now it’s up to us to let them know we back their efforts.

ERIS FORTUNATO

San Diego

* So far in 1997, I have received six requests for campaign contributions from both the Republicans and Democrats. I have not sent either party one dollar. Instead, I wrote in large, bold letters, across the contribution return card: “Not one dollar more until we have real campaign finance reform!”

I enclosed it in the return envelope they furnished and mailed it back to them. Some envelopes were postage paid. The others I gladly put a 32-cent stamp on.

The special interests are buying the votes of our senators and congressmen. Why should we help any senator or congressman get reelected with our hard-earned money? They no longer represent us.

RALPH D. HILLMAN

Newport Beach

* How ironic is it that the Democratic Party got its foreign contributions from the communist People’s Republic of China, whereas the Republican Party received its from a company in capitalist Hong Kong.

MATTHEW HARPER

Huntington Beach

* In your May 13 editorial you state, “The lesson once again emerging is that appeasement can be a costly and humiliating policy.” Would that apply to the United States’ apparent policy of appeasement (for national and corporate economic reasons) toward China?

The last sentence of the editorial implies that it is not in the nature of North Korea to give honest answers. Has the communist government in China proved that it can be trusted to give an honest answer? Do you believe that they know nothing of trying to influence U.S. election results or the outcome of the vote on MFN status for China?

JOHN F. KERKHOFF

Somis