Campaign Finance Reform Measures

In his enthusiasm for much-needed campaign finance reform, and for Prop. 212, Michael Stokes (letter, Sept. 2) neglected to point out the latter’s flaws. This initiative would nullify the ethics laws that now prohibit California elected officials from accepting gifts, travel money and honoraria. This is either the biggest initiative drafting error in the history of initiatives or the intention was to fool voters into repealing some of the state’s most important political reform laws.

The measure is written in a manner which allows the two largest PACs to contribute as much as 100 times more than the individual contributor. It also has a provision that would invalidate local campaign reform ordinances already in place in San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that mandatory spending limits, which are included in this measure, are unconstitutional.

Prop. 208, which will also appear on the November ballot, does offer sound campaign finance reform that can withstand constitutional challenges. It has a realistic schedule of campaign contribution limits, voluntary spending limits and does not pander to special interests.

JUDY BORASH

Beverly Hills