Propositions to Limit Campaign Contributions

* Re “Big Political Donors Are Indeed Different,” Opinion, Oct. 6:

The unfortunate reality that corporations dominate national politics is even more true here in California. A recent study by CALPIRG reported that in the 1994 elections, corporations gave more than $50 million directly to state legislative candidates, a full 26% of all money raised in the election. Candidates who received more corporate funding than their opponents won 91% of the time.

This must change. There are two campaign finance reform initiatives on the November ballot, and they treat corporate giving very differently: Prop. 212 bans corporate contributions, as most states already do; Prop. 208 does not. Prop. 212 eliminates the special corporate tax deduction for lobbying, saving $6 million in taxpayer money; Prop. 208 does not. Proposition 212 gets rid of “soft money” by banning corporate contributions to political parties; Proposition 208 has a massive soft money loophole allowing corporations to funnel $5,000 through political parties to the candidate of their choice.

JON GOLINGER

CALPIRG Field Organizer

Venice

* Prop. 212 promises mandatory spending limits while 208 promises only voluntary spending limits. Sounds like mandatory is a sure bet to get voters to believe it will work. In actuality, mandatory spending limits violate 1st Amendment free speech rights, as ruled in the Buckley vs. Valeo case in 1976. Prop. 212 opponents readily agree they want to test this issue. Why test free speech, of all things? It is a real waste and a sacrifice of campaign finance reform. The case continues to control court decisions and many provisions in 212 violate those protections.

Prop. 208 proponents drafted a measure that adheres to court precedents, allowing it to take effect, and yet safeguards against wealthy candidates and runaway independent expenditures outspending those without resources.

SHEILA HOFF, President

League of Women Voters of the Palos Verdes Peninsula