In Philadelphia, the Democrats party with billionaires. So much for Sanders’ revolution.

To the editor: If there is any wonder as to why so many voters feel ambivalent about this presidential election, two headlines in The Times explain why. (“Anti-corporate sentiment doesn’t slow down the party scene for lobbyists and lawmakers in Philadelphia,” July 28)

On the Democratic side, there’s the display of the luxury of super donors whose money creates a quid pro quo relationship with the potential president. Meanwhile, the Republican presidential nominee has called on Russia to reveal information that would destroy his opponent and get him into the White House.

This election, more than any other I remember, is really about choosing the least evil candidate. It is about stopping a con man from causing further damage to our vulnerable country.

Like the Bernie Sanders supporter quoted in the article, John Klein, I wonder, “Whatever happened to the candidates being all about the people?”

Berta Graciano-Buchman, Beverly Hills

..

To the editor: Many Democrats would love to pass campaign finance reform. The problem is the opposition has successfully beat such legislation back.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the 2010 Citizens United case effectively allowed corporations to dump as much money as they want into political campaigns. It seems to me that if the The Times wants to tar Hillary Clinton’s campaign with the notion that the DNC has callously chosen to accept campaign contributions from corporations and the country’s wealthiest citizens, this article should have referred to the overall need for campaign finance reform.

Expecting the Democratic National Committee to campaign without the assistance of major donors, while the Donald Trump campaign brags about the Republican nominee’s wealth, would be absurd. Campaign finance reform is surely a must, but we won’t get if we elect Trump as president.

Gloria J. Richards, Simi Valley

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook