Mailbag: Ramani has done nothing wrong

As the volunteer campaign treasurer for Sunder Ramani for Assembly, I am troubled by the glaring headlines about Sunder’s campaign and the Fair Political Practices Commission investigation for alleged procedural reporting violations (“Probe targets Ramani funds,” June 22).

While his opponent, Mike Gatto, is also under investigation for alleged campaign finance violations, I am writing to you to set the record straight about Sunder’s campaign and my actions as treasurer.

I have known Sunder for many years, and due to his steadfast support for the community, I agreed to serve on a volunteer basis as his campaign treasurer, having experience working as a treasurer for campaigns and charitable organizations in the past.

Designated an enrolled agent by the Internal Revenue Service, I managed my own practice from 1973 until 1993 serving more than 750 clients. Unfortunately, campaign finance rules are constantly changing and it is quite easy to make an error, which can result in a technical violation. In this respect, it is not unlike the average American taxpayer trying to understand and comply with the federal income tax code — it is easy to make an honest mistake that can land you in hot water.

The entire issue in question here is a particular new provision in the law, which requires campaigns to report all contributions within a 24-hour period during the last months leading up to an election. Unfortunately, being unaware of the new provision, I reported every contribution according to the old standards rather than the new one, and for that reason the Fair Political Practices Commission has decided to investigate my actions.

I am cooperating fully with the commission to ensure that all their questions are answered, but I want to assure the public that these mistakes were honest ones, were procedural in nature and were entirely unintentional.

Sunder is an extraordinary member of our community and I am grateful he is willing to step up to represent us. This incident should in no way diminish the public’s trust in him or reflect negatively on his unblemished record of honest and faithful public service.

Pamela Corradi

Burbank

Editor’s note: Corradi is the treasurer for Republican Sunder Ramani’s state Assembly campaign.

An argument against household guns

When I heard about the recent Supreme Court ruling that the 2nd Amendment had to be applied equally not to just federal laws but also to state and local laws, I immediately joined the NRA so I could celebrate with its members. I got out my ancient single-shot pistol and fired a number of shots into the air. While I was doing this, someone tried to break in the front door, so, BAM, I stopped that intruder. Oops, it was my neighbor who had just had a massive facelift and I didn’t recognize her.

That is not as ridiculous as some might accuse me of being, because statistics I have read show that far more friends, neighbors and family members are killed by household guns than intruders. Personally, I lost a nephew by a readily available household handgun.

If necessary, for a number of reasons, including profession or residing in a dangerous neighborhood, handguns should be available for personal defense, but only legally purchased and registered, as well as owners who are licensed to own and trained in the use of the guns. Doesn’t it sound just like other dangerous devices called cars that must be registered, licensed and have licensed users? Sadly, I know that these deeply held gun thoughts will really raise the hackles of those who adore their guns.

The constitutional amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The gun lovers and those who believe that individual rights take precedence over everything else completely ignore the first half of the amendment.

Others consider the amendment ambivalent on individuals’ gun rights, while the rest of us do not think it is ambivalent at all. We believe that “A well regulated Militia....security of a free state” is crucial to the interpretation and implementation of the amendment and can’t be ignored and trampled on by those who believe in an unfettered right to have guns.

Also, there is no doubt that in the late 1700s, when the amendment was ratified, the need for defense of the state was of paramount importance in the minds of those who initiated the amendment, not the complete freedom for individual ownership of the killing machines.

Robert Morrison

Glendale