Clinton Coffees and Campaign Reform

“Clinton Coffee Guests Gave DNC $27 Million” (Jan. 28) cited that the administration and party officials insisted that the sessions were appropriate and that the only purpose for inviting the guests to the White House was to give guests an opportunity to share their views with the president, not for soliciting campaign funds.

If this was the case, how come the president only held “coffee gatherings” for DNC-sponsored guests, and had no bipartisan gatherings under the same pretext? Although in past administrations, this practice may have been done infrequently, it’s obvious that this president has used and abused the power and privilege of the presidency by making these gatherings a regular event, not to seek views, but to indirectly solicit, recognize and reward a select number of individuals for their past, present and future support.

KENNETH M. LANDON

Los Angeles

* What is the news value of the front-page attention being given to the fund-raising activities of the DNC in the White House? This is not a “man bites dog” event. It is not news. Presidents have allowed the White House to be used for such purposes for eons. One expects them to do so. That prominent people attend these functions means nothing, unless the media can tie in some sleazy quid pro quo arrangement.

CHARLES R. BARR

Upland

* There are several ways reform can be approached. Officeholders might be required to recuse themselves from matters involving any campaign donor, as is already done by courts and local governments. It goes without saying that the practice of adding private bills to major legislation as riders needs to end.

Another approach involves reforming and standardizing the tax code and reining in the administrative agencies to preclude the opportunity for private special treatment for patrons. If such rules are enforced, donating to political parties and campaigns might be a poor investment.

There is no real need for the obscene amounts that the major parties spent on political cam paigning in 1996. If they were to find their funds scaled back, we might see such sanity as a shortening of the campaign season. There are also better ways to spread information than the intellectually hollow TV attack ads of recent campaigns.

PATRICK W. HAYES

Dana Point

* It’s clear that one of our constitutional rights is up for sale to the personal benefit of officeholders from President Clinton on down. The Constitution grants the right to petition for redress of grievances to all, but big donors are the ones granted what politicos call “access,” i.e. the exercise of this right.

Perhaps now that there is widespread, unapologetic defense by politicians of purchased “access” it will dawn on the Supreme Court that its “money talks” jurisprudence, which affords cash spent in the political arena the same protection as speech, is off track.

ROBERT S. THOMPSON

Retired Justice

California Court of Appeal

La Jolla