Soft Money in Campaigns

In his defense of soft (i.e. unregulated) political contributions (Column Right, April 20), James Pinkerton points out that the total of federal soft money (mostly, as he notes, from corporations) is less than 1% of the pork-barrel spending authorized in Washington. What Pinkerton fails to note is that much of the pork is granted to those corporations that shrewdly provide the soft money. Here we have a perfectly legal system of bribery (or if you prefer a “free-market politics”).

Voters in Maine, Massachusetts and Arizona have recently approved legislation that would enable candidates to make a viable run for state office without accepting large sums from those who seek preferential treatment. Until clean-money elections are general we can expect the continuation of the Golden Rule of American politics--those who supply the gold will rule.

WILLIAM H. FORTHMAN

Northridge

*

We are writing about House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s refusal to schedule the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill, HR 417, for consideration. This delay tactic, against the will of the people, is unacceptable. It has been clear from past votes that the Shays-Meehan bill would carry at present with bipartisan support. We cannot go through another election without resolving this issue.

This delay plays into the hands of large vested financial interests at the expense of the people our public officials were elected to represent. At this time 189 representatives have already signed a petition calling for the appearance of HR 417 on the House floor. Let us not see this bill thwarted again.

DWIGHT STONE

SARA FLATOW

Los Angeles