Negative Campaigning

There is one thing I am certain of: If I am still alive in 1996, I will unplug my television, stack away my radio and cancel my newspaper subscriptions. I cannot go through another election year--eight or nine months of campaign mudslinging!

Margaret Thatcher had the right idea--limit campaigning to three weeks before an election! Couldn’t we at least limit it to one month before the primary and one month before the general election?

ESTELLE ARNOLD

Chino

* We currently have laws banning television advertising which is felt to be not in the public interest or harmful to society. Tobacco and liquor are the obvious examples.

So maybe a solution to the current despicable use of television and radio by those running for office or promoting propositions--and a way to curb the obscene amount of money being spent on elections--is to ban political advertising from the electronic media. Such a ban would eliminate a huge amount of information distortion, and help stop the current hijacking of the election process by 30-second spots. Who knows, it might even encourage people to work a little harder to learn about candidates and issues.

I also think laws requiring candidates to hold a minimum number of face-to-face debates when running for office would be helpful to voters and useful to force candidates to discuss issues, not accusations.

DAVID BOULE

Torrance

* I have two ideas that will improve the next election campaign. First, permit campaign contributions only from people registered to vote for the candidate. In the primary that means if you are a registered Republican or Democrat, you can only contribute to candidates in your party. If you are registered as an independent, you can donate only to candidates running as independents. That would be the end of PACs, the Hollywood left, the religious right and the political powerbrokers. If you can’t vote for the candidate, you can’t contribute either. The second idea concerns the content of campaign advertisements. Every word spoken on a TV spot, or printed on the TV screen, must be spoken, on camera, by the candidate and the mouth must be visible! I have the feeling that a lot that was said in the past elections would not have been said if the candidate had to say it, with his or her face in full view. Every sign, bumper sticker, billboard and all literature sent by mail, must contain the candidate’s picture large enough to be recognized at a distance.

JAMES T. HUMBERD

La Quinta

* When children can be denied education, when the sick can be denied health care, when candidates campaign on who is the greater immigrant-hater and compete over which one is more enamored of executions, and the public votes based on these “issues,” we are truly in a quagmire from which we may never extricate ourselves.

We’re undertaxed, catered-to whiners, resisting necessary taxes, scared and/or unwilling to face tough solutions, yet demanding panaceas; flailing in desperation to the Republicans, our saviors, forgetting that their pandering policies created our economic mess and that their tired “law and order” rhetoric has accomplished zero.

That a lying, posturing, self-aggrandizing hypocrite like Mike Huffington can almost buy a Senate seat illustrates the awesome gullibility of the electorate.

As so presciently stated by H.L. Mencken: “No one ever lost a plugged nickel underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”

ILENE BRISKIN

Beverly Hills

* Now that the elections are over and 1992 and 1994 are being analyzed, I have made the following observation. The most noticeable difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats accept defeat with dignity and vow to work for change. Republicans never accept defeat and vow revenge.

GEORGIA ADAMS

Santa Ana