Fund Raising in ’96 Election

The selective amnesia Vice President Al Gore is apparently suffering should concern any voter who hopes to see him as our next president.

He originally did not remember the many calls he made from the White House for campaign moneys. He does not recall much at all about what took place at the Buddhist temple fund-raiser.

Memory loss appears to be an epidemic in the executive branch. Perhaps he caught the malady from Bill or Hillary.

ROBERT G. DALLMAN

Thousand Oaks

* As a Buddhist, I feel ashamed and I accept the blame and the pain for what the Buddhist nuns from the Hsi Lai Temple of Hacienda Heights did for the DNC (Sept. 5). The nuns obviously violated the basic Buddhist teachings of “Do no evil, do good and purify one’s mind.” They might not have done right on the first, but I pray for them that they will make amends by doing more of the latter two. It is indeed a lesson to learn for people of all faiths that politics and religions do not mix.

DESMOND B. CHIONG

San Marino

* The hypocrisy of senators feigning shock and disgust at a South Korean businessman contributing $250,000 to the Democratic National Committee for the chance to meet President Clinton is truly breathtaking (Sept. 6).

As Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) pointed out at the conclusion of testimony by former Carson Mayor Michael Mitoma, the Republican National Committee is currently offering $250,000 contributors the opportunity to have a private meeting with the Republican committee chairman of their choice.

Personally speaking, we are far more concerned that a corporate fat cat will pay a quarter of a million dollars for the right to discuss private interest legislation with a committee chairman than that an Asian businessman paid the same amount for the right to impress his family and friends with a picture taken with the president.

DANIEL M. MAYEDA

SUSAN I. ROSALES

Culver City

* Your Sept. 3 editorial (“For Once, a Fast and Easy Fix”) is right to argue that “to stop foreign money from coming into U.S. election campaigns, do away with ‘soft money’ contributions.” Closing the soft money loophole alone wouldn’t be a bad place to start reforming the system. But beware: There are signs that Congress may trade a ban on soft money for new rules expanding the role of big money in politics.

One proposal quietly making the rounds of Capitol Hill would double the total annual contribution limit for individuals to $50,000 and eliminate party spending limits. Such changes would only favor the richest fraction of a tiny minority of voters who give such sums and make the campaign finance system even more dependent on wealthy and special interest contributors.

ELLEN S. MILLER

Executive Director

Public Campaign, Washington

* Your editorial hit the nail right on the head, that a ban on soft money should be the cornerstone of any campaign finance reform bill. I agree and will vote to abolish soft money at the first opportunity.

However, that alone does not solve the problems of huge amounts of unregulated dollars that will then flow into so-called independent expenditure campaigns, which attack candidates under the guise of legitimate independent issue ads. The loophole in current law is the loose definition of what constitutes “express advocacy.”

I believe that, if constitutionally acceptable, any candidate ad by an independent expenditure campaign that uses a candidate’s name or image within 60 days of an election should be funded only with regulated money, or so-called “hard dollars.” I also believe that the following can and must be achieved:

* Lowering the disclosure requirements for contributions from $200 to $50.

* Limiting the ability to make candidate contributions to only those Americans who are eligible to vote.

* Strengthening the enforcement authority of the Federal Election Commission.

* Increasing individual contribution limits to $2,000 per election from the current limit of $1,000 per election--limits that have not been raised since 1974--and indexing those limits for inflation.

What I do not believe is achievable right now are spending limits which run afoul of the Constitution. These few reforms are doable this session. We must proceed.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN

D-California