Campaign Mail Limits Would Help Incumbents

Re “Return to Sender,” Aug. 11:

The Times’ call for further controls on campaign mail is a cry for censorship of political speech. The slate mailers you seek to banish are often the only way non-wealthy candidates can afford to get their message out. Restricting political giving and speech only helps wealthy incumbents. Of seven countywide incumbents in the March primary, six were reelected. Five ran opposed. Further campaign controls will make county elections even more lopsided.

Current restrictions are so skewed to protect incumbents that when the rare challenger, such as myself, does win, some call for even further controls on political mail. Now that I’ll soon be an incumbent myself, perhaps I shouldn’t care, but freedom of speech applies to all, including any future challengers I may have.

The Times urges voters to throw away slate mailers “without so much as a glance.” Should we do the same with all the advertising inserts that come with your newspaper? Voters, like consumers, need more information, not less. Your newspaper is protected by the 1st Amendment. Political candidates and contributors are entitled to the same protections.

Chris Norby

Orange County

Supervisor-Elect,

4th District

*

Re “Regulations on Slate Mailers Put a Muzzle on Free Speech,” July 21:

James Lacy criticized the county’s adoption of a rule that would regulate the content of slate mailers, which is not true, and he failed to explain that the new rule seeks only to close a loophole in the $1,000 contribution limit.

In the recent election, more than a dozen slate mailers were issued by the Voter Education Project, a slate mailer organization, in which three of the four pages in each mailer featured Chris Norby for supervisor. These mailers were in reality candidate campaign literature produced by a slate mailer organization as a way to evade the county’s contribution limits.

Normally a candidate pays for his own candidate literature. But not in this case. Norby and his consultants coordinated the production and distribution of these mailers with a slate mailer organization, but the cost of these mailers was covered by a $440,000 payment from the anti-airport committee to the slate mailer organization. By contributing to the slate mailer organization (which is not regulated by the county’s campaign ordinance) instead of contributing directly to Norby (who is subject to the county’s campaign ordinance), the county’s $1,000 contribution limit was evaded.

The recently adopted county regulation will close this loophole by making candidates pay their fair share of a mailer. Further, nothing in the rules controls or dictates the content of the mailer.

Norby played and won by the rules of the game fair and square. The new law seeks only to ensure that all candidates compete on a level playing field. However, the old rules were no match for resourceful political consultants.

William R. Mitchell

Newport Beach