White House Fund-Raising Practices

Re “Fund-Raising Machinations Don’t Belong in White House,” editorial, Jan. 30:

On the 21st anniversary of the Buckley vs. Valeo Supreme Court decision, which erred in declaring that mandatory spending limits were unconstitutional, I could not agree more that we need campaign finance reform now. However, I must take exception to The Times’ rallying cry to pass the McCain-Feingold bill currently being considered by the Senate.

The details of this bill include an allowance for increasing the amount that individuals can contribute to candidates from $1,000 to $2,000. The limits should be lowered to an amount which an average citizen can afford, not increased to further accommodate wealthy donors.

WENDY WENDLANDT

Political Director

State Public Interest

Research Groups, Los Angeles

* Political action committees seem to be the main target of some legislators when considering election reform. But these PACs, even though their main offices are in Washington, are formed and supported by people all around the country. They give ordinary people an opportunity to influence elections and legislation. Wealthy people, large corporations, etc., don’t need PACs because they have large amounts of money to exert their influence.

Election reform can start by enforcing the laws we already have against voter fraud, foreign contributions, etc.

Let’s not lose our 1st Amendment rights in our rush to election reform.

HARRIET DORAN

Downey

* I am totally ashamed that my president and his administration seem to be ready to sell the government and its power and authority to the highest bidder. Of course I have heard all of the excuses--no influence or decision was made as a result of contributions, etc. To say that explanation strains credulity is to put it mildly.

I only wish these things had surfaced before the election.

RONALD R. SPOSATO

Santa Ana

* The commentaries under “Perspectives on Campaign Finance” (Jan. 31) are winners. I’m keeping all three pieces for my files. Ross K. Baker should nail his to the door of the White House.

GERRY FALLON

San Marino

* The difference between Bill Clinton’s fund-raising and that of George Bush and Ronald Reagan is that Clinton is being blatantly open about it. Thus, he is giving the public a good look at the process. The people in the press have piled on Clinton in shock (shock!) that he is raising so much money. While Republicans are raising even more money, commentators imply that Clinton should unilaterally disarm in shame.

I thought Clinton’s press conference statements (Jan. 29) were basically sensible; a president needs to promote his policies to potential backers, but fund-raising requirements have become onerous. Any solution must deal with these realities.

BRIAN MILLAR

Encinitas