On Politics and Partiality

* Once again The Times has displayed a lack of objectivity. In the article “Party Animals” on Oct. 13, you used the term “ultraconservative” to describe Republican activist Mike Houston. However, in perusing the article on the Democrat Marti Schrank, no such similar label can be found. Is it any wonder why so many people question your impartiality in political coverage?

JOHN LEWIS

State senator

Orange

* So The Times has endorsed the weak and ineffectual Proposition 208 and its lame excuse at “campaign reform” instead of Proposition 212, the measure which has some teeth in it, and the only measure that would provide real campaign reform. What a surprise! Not!

For only Proposition 212 will provide realistic limits upon campaign contributions and severely curtail the disproportionate influence exerted by special interests on elections in California. That is why its support cuts across the entire political spectrum, from former Rep. William Dannemeyer and myself on the right, to the California Teachers Assn. and former Gov. Jerry Brown on the left.

In California this year there are three major statewide initiatives which are worthy of public support: the aforementioned Proposition 212, Proposition 209 [affirmative action], and Proposition 218 [voter approval for local government taxes], sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. Rest assured, The Times will oppose all of them. But then, one does not need to be a rocket scientist to see how far out of touch The Times is with the voters--and with reality!

EDDIE ROSE

City Council member

Laguna Niguel

* On the surface, Proposition 212 limits individual contributions to a low level to look good. But underground, it opens a wide tunnel for big political action committees, allowing them to contribute even more than they already can.

Under Proposition 212, new citizens’ contributions committees (groups of 25 people or more) can each give up to $10,000 to local candidates and $20,000 to statewide candidates per election, and $60,000 a year to political parties--100 times the present limits. Some political influence reduction! But this is not surprising, since Proposition 212 is sponsored by one of the state’s largest PACs.

Real campaign finance reform is found in Proposition 208, instead. Its maximum citizens’ committee contribution is $5,000. Individual contribution limits are $100 for local races to $500 for statewide races. And it sets maximum spending limits as “voluntary,” but with a “carrot,” as U.S. Supreme Court rulings only allow. Also not surprising is that Proposition 208 is nonpartisan, sponsored by political reform groups including League of Women Voters, Common Cause, United We Stand America and AARP.

NEIL CLEERE

Yorba Linda

* In the Oct. 15 story, “Prominent GOP Members Back Clinton in O.C.,” you quote [county GOP Chairman] Tom Fuentes as saying that my support of then-Gov. Bill Clinton was one of self-interest because it resulted in my appointment to head the General Services Administration.

If he thinks that serving in Washington, D.C., particularly as the head of the GSA, would serve any reasonable person’s self-interest, than he is farther out of touch with reality than I thought he was. But, then again, taken from the viewpoint of a person who has fed at the trough of the political process most of his life, as Fuentes has, it may be understandable why he has trouble with the concept of someone serving because he or she felt it was their civic responsibility.

Incidentally, my support for then-Gov. Clinton began in 1991 when he was only one of seven still in the Democratic primary and at a time when President Bush’s popularity was in the mid-60% range (hardly an act of self-interest--particularly in Orange County). I am even prouder today to be continuing to strongly support him!

ROGER W. JOHNSON

Costa Mesa