‘Clean money’ bill and election finance reform

The Times’ editorial supporting the “clean money” bill (“Buying back government,” Dec. 7) correctly identified public financing of election campaigns as the key factor in leading Sacramento out of its current morass of special interests.

In fact, if the Legislature and governor are really going to start working together, as they promise, this is just the place to start.

DAN SILVER

Los Angeles

*

I support public financing of state elections, but we need to roll back term limits at the same time. Clean money promises to increase the number of inexperienced legislators.

Current legislators already barely have time to learn their jobs before they have to prepare to run for another office. Inexperienced legislators will need even more time to become effective.

If term limits remain in place, any decrease in legislative effectiveness due to these new officeholders will be blamed on clean money rather than on term limits.

DANILA ODER

Los Angeles

*

One thing is certain, we will not get clean air, clean water or clean communities without clean money. California needs clean money to deal with the many environmental problems it has that just seem to get worse and worse each year.

JANE WILLIAMS

Rosamond, Calif.

*

Clean money is not just another reform -- there have been more than a dozen “reforms” tried in California since 1913, and none has made a whiff of difference.

Today, candidates who raise the most money get their party’s nomination. The moment they win, they are -- and let’s face reality here, friends -- obligated to “dance with the ones who brung ‘em.” It cannot be otherwise.

To forsake big donors after election day is to kiss their office goodbye. Big fundraisers accumulate big war chests, and they help their friends win elections. They also get appointed to key committees, or they help their friends get appointed.

Money controls government today. Not us.

TOBI DRAGERT

Los Angeles