Prop. 34 Would Block Reform

Re “A Very Good Bad Example,” editorial, Aug. 4: I couldn’t agree more that former Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush exemplifies the need for strict campaign finance reform; however, I must strongly disagree with your support for Proposition 34, the Legislature’s campaign finance proposal on the November ballot.

The Legislature had only one objective in mind when it put Proposition 34 on the ballot. It was to ensure that Proposition 208, the strictest campaign finance measure in the nation, would never go into effect. Since its passage by over 60% of California voters, the Democrats and Republicans have fought in the courts to prevent 208’s implementation. Members of the Democratic and Republican leadership have been told by their attorneys that a U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this year upholding strict contribution limits leaves little doubt that the federal appeals court will uphold Proposition 208 when it gets the case later this year. That is why they passed Proposition 34.

Proposition 34 doesn’t even limit contributions to the insurance commissioner until after the next commissioner is elected in 2002. Proposition 34 is the Legislature’s insurance policy to protect campaign contributions. That is why it is opposed by California Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and AARP.

RUTH HOLTON

Board member, Common Cause

Berkeley

*

Apparently, sleaze and corrupt behavior are legal in California. That’s a problem. However, unlimited campaign contributions and political fund swaps don’t promote sleaze and corruption, people do.

When it comes to the almighty dollar the bottom line is “in God we trust” they do the right thing.

APRIL L. SANDELL

Rancho Palos Verdes