Trying to Reform Campaign Financing

Re “Balancing Money in Politics,” Commentary, April 19: In the Supreme Court’s 1976 Buckley vs. Valeo ruling, the court made it clear that the interest in preventing corruption must take a back seat to the 1st Amendment rights of candidates. Richard Hasen suggests that the court has it all wrong, and he floats a radical alternative: Eliminate private money altogether and finance campaigns entirely from public funds. A process in which “bona fide” candidates would receive free airtime to disseminate their views would, he maintains, invigorate our campaign process and enhance our democracy -- noble ends which, in his view, would hardly threaten anyone’s 1st Amendment rights.

I can’t help but wonder, do you think those candidates deemed less than bona fide would agree? And who makes such a call? The same government that since 1980 has been so interested in invigorating our presidential debates that it consistently excludes anyone who isn’t a “Demopublican” or “Republocrat”?

Barry Mulholland

Norwalk

Isn’t it fascinating that every time a new campaign finance reform law passes and fails to work as advertised, the result is always more finger-pointing, more lawsuits and more complaints that money is corrupting the process -- and the proposed remedy is always more regulation of expression, whether or not it kneecaps the 1st Amendment? Campaign finance reform will work brilliantly, as soon as we become a totalitarian society.

Or perhaps more fairly, if it is pursued far enough to really work, it will midwife the birth of a totalitarian society. When will they ever learn?

Michael Klein

Los Angeles