Billboard Firm’s Contributions

The article (“Billboard Firm Contributed to 3 Anaheim Election Funds,” Feb. 12) failed to consider several significant aspects of the campaign financing dilemma. Implied in the article is the notion that large campaign contributions somehow taint the electoral process. As a longtime political observer and political contributor, I must take exception.

It has been my long-held belief that the spiraling costs of running a political campaign stem in large part from growing apathy on the part of the public. Politicians have necessarily turned to professional campaign consultants, television and radio advertisements and expensive mailers to spread their messages because voters are uninterested and no longer feel obligated to educate themselves about the issues or candidates.

I have watched over the years as attendance dwindled at candidate forums. Fewer people are reading newspapers to learn about what is happening in their communities.

The sad reality today is that it takes money, sometimes lots of money, to motivate voters and elect the best and most able candidates to office.

I would be among the first to step forward as a supporter of any effort aimed at establishing limits on campaign contributions and campaign spending, especially if it would spur waning voter interest. I have a nagging suspicion, however, that such reforms will lead only to ensuring that mediocre or fringe candidates have a greater chance of winning than the best and brightest of candidates.

I also feel compelled to respond to the way the Times’ has characterized my personal contributions to Anaheim candidates. In a chart accompanying its Feb. 12 article, The Times lumped my personal campaign contributions together under the heading “Contributions From Billboard Interests.” I found this characterization insulting, shallow and just plain silly.

It would be interesting to know how many people read this response and how they feel about it. Probably not many and not much.

FLOYD L. FARANO

Anaheim