Fairness in Campaign Financing

Julie Froeberg’s article reflects the sad disposition of the bureaucrat--the failure to look at elected representatives from an objective perspective and to recognize that the majority of those same elected representatives on both the state and national levels have placed their own reelection above the needs of the state and the nation.

It appears that both of our political parties have abdicated their responsibilities on both the state and federal levels, only to pursue their political power bases.

It does not matter to which party they belong. The system is inherently flawed when a U.S. senator has to raise on the average $10,000 per week to have a war chest for the next election. Naturally, rules are bent, bent more, bent still more, then finally broken.

Froeberg’s naivete is indeed reflected in her comment: “We could all look a little more kindly toward those in public office who really are working diligently on our behalf.” Should we laugh or cry? Most of those elected officials are able to convince the voters in their district that they are indeed “working on our behalf”--not by actually working on behalf of the county as a whole, but by using their offices to fund projects for their own districts without regard to what that project will do to the overall state or national budget, in effect buying votes with the public funds.

In the process we are exposed to election campaigns that have nothing to do with a discussion of society’s problems.

Prop. 140 is no perfect solution to the problem of the existing political fiefdoms in both Sacramento and Washington. But on both the state and national levels, our representatives have failed us. Give Prop. 140 a try. The present system certainly is not working.

Give Prop. 140 a try. The present system certainly is not working.

GERRY LONG, Newport Beach