Proposition 68: Limit on Funds

In response to your front-page article, “Rival Measures Seek to Limit Political Funds” (May 14), Proposition 68 has much stronger provisions. Proposition 73 is not a legitimate “rival” to Proposition 68 because Proposition 73 fails to place limits on spending and lacks the teeth of constitutional enforcement that Proposition 68 has by virtue of its public funding provision.

The Times revelation that some legislators spend more than $2 million to win a legislative seat that pays only $37,105 a year indicates that the system is way out of whack. Maybe legislators should get a much higher salary. After all, they have much to do with compilation and administration of the state’s $30-billion annual budget.

If Proposition 68 becomes law and the legislators then feel handicapped by being deprived of the slop-over that excess funds provide, hopefully they will muster the political courage and display the acumen for public service that will prove higher salaries are justified. The low pay and having to endure the indignities of groveling for contributions has detracted many qualified people from seeking public office.

Historically, 90% of campaign financing come from special interest groups who invariably expect and get special consideration whenever issues beneficial to those groups come before the Legislature. He who controls the money has the power. The public funding provided by Proposition 68 returns the power to the people.

ROBERT L. JORDAN

Glendale