Letters to the Editor

Writing a Letter to the San Diego Union-Tribune

A letter to the editor is a great way to get the public's attention. Please take the time to write one today on the need for Clean Elections.

To be considered for publication, a letter must include an address, daytime phone number and, if faxed or mailed, be signed. It may be sent to Letters Editor, The San Diego Union-Tribune, Post Office Box 120191, San Diego, CA 92112-0191, faxed to (619) 260-5081 or e-mailed to letters@uniontrib.com.

---

San Diego Union-Tribune on February 15, 2007

Don't Expect Politicians to 'Heal' Themselves

I'm not a Pollyanna, so I wasn't shocked to read “Congress finds ways to skirt its own rules” (A1, Feb. 11). I'm just mad as hell and don't understand why the “silent majority” doesn't get it. Having politicians “heal” themselves is crazy. I think it is our responsibility as citizens to do something to change the status quo.

One by one, we have to let Congress and those running for office know that we will vote out anyone who contributes to this problem. It will take a while but eventually they'll get the picture. If the average American would stop waving the flag and pay attention to what we are allowing to happen to this country we may have a chance to salvage this great nation.

The legislative branch is already so mired in partisan politics and corruption that it is no longer able to do its job. There has to be a way to reform our election procedures to keep out lobbyists and their corporations. If it takes publicly funded elections, then so be it.

There is becoming a vast difference between the haves and have-nots in this country, and that is not a good thing. Maybe I am a Pollyanna after all to think that change is possible, but I hope not.

KATHERINE REMMARDE
San Diego

---

San Diego Union-Tribune on October 26, 2006

Casting a Vote for Prop. 89

As experience in Maine has shown, the clean elections movement is a proven way to restore the power of government to the citizenry. Either corporations and special interests buy the politicians, or the public does. Clean elections represent a ray of hope in an otherwise bleak, business-as-usual political landscape.

Ask yourself, “Am I you happy with the way our political leaders have performed under our current all-the-democracy-money-can-buy system?” If so, vote No; otherwise, join me and demand a change. Vote Yes on Proposition 89.
VICENTE A. VARGAS
San Diego

---

San Diego Union-Tribune on September 9, 2006

Taking issue with Union-Tribune on Prop. 89

I was disappointed by your editorial against Proposition 89 (“No on Prop. 89/It's badly written, unconstitutional and futile,” Aug. 24). Proposition 89 is patterned after successful reforms in Arizona and Maine. Candidates for state elections who collect a certain number of $5 contributions, and agree to forgo private contributions, will qualify for public financing. My strong support for the proposition is based on my experience as a candidate for the Assembly in the 78th District in June.

For democracy to work, candidates need a way to communicate with voters. It takes money. The public benefits when a variety of people are able to run for office and share their ideas. Perhaps the biggest benefit of public financing is that it allows candidates to focus their time and energy on connecting to voters rather than constantly raising money.

Many good candidates are nearly invisible. I was in a competitive primary where neither candidate had major money. Voters would often ask, “Why haven't I heard anything about this race?” Most voters knew nothing about me, or my opponent, even after months of campaigning. Most people do not realize how difficult it is for a typical candidate to raise money. After months of phoning and sending letters, my campaign raised a small fraction of what most winning candidates raise.

Campaign fundraising is time-consuming. I spent half my time raising money and the other half talking to voters. I can't help thinking it would be better for democracy if candidates could focus more on the voters. As a voter, I want to make meaningful choices. As a candidate, I have seen how our current system separates leaders from the people they intend to represent.

Proposition 89 is not the whole solution, but it would help. The Union-Tribune has supported redistricting reform as a way to give more power to the voters. I strongly urge you to support campaign finance reform for the same reason.

GEORGE GASTIL
Lemon Grove

Proposition 89 is an opportunity for California to have candidates who are only beholden to their constituents and not to their donators. Candidates can have the opportunity to get to know the issues in their communities instead of spending half of their time or more fundraising.

Californians can have a much more diverse selection of candidates to choose from and not just candidates who are rich or have rich connections or have connections to donors who will expect something from them in the future. The system is broken. Let's do something to clean it up.

MARY KENNEDY
San Diego

I'm not surprised by opposition to Proposition 89 from the entrenched minority. It wants to continue to buy power in California by buying politicians. But consider this: Randy “Duke” Cunningham, in my opinion, arrived in office starry-eyed and full of a desire to continue to serve his country. Over many years our “Sell Favors for Your Campaign Fund” system turned him into a felon.

Taking campaign money in exchange for political favors is not just legal, under our present sick system of campaign finance it's just about mandatory if you want to get elected. Can we reasonably expect our elected officials not to become jaded and corrupted by this system? It's just a short hop to taking gifts and cash for your own pocket, and slam . . . you're in jail.

Proposition 89 offers a better way. Clean, honest people who wish to serve as our elected officials can stay clean and honest and do the job the way it ought to be done. Clean elections isn't just a dream. It's been working for years in other states. It's time to let it start working in our state.

LEE CRAWFORD
Kensington Park

---

San Diego Union-Tribune on September 5, 2006

Offering support for'Clean election' laws

The Union-Tribune's position against Proposition 89 is unfortunate and misguided (“No on Prop. 89/It's badly written, unconstitutional and futile,” Editorial, Aug. 24). Proposition 89, also known as “Clean Elections” in the seven states and two municipalities that currently have it as law, gives candidates a chance to run for office without being in the pocket of high-powered lobbyists and well-heeled campaign donors.

As executive director of Public Campaign, I believe Proposition 89 will offer qualified candidates a public grant to run their campaign once they qualify by collecting a set number of $5 contributions. And repeatedly, state and federal courts have ruled the system constitutional.

In Maine and Arizona, where their statewide systems have been up and running since 2000, Clean Elections has become the norm. Currently, 10 of 11 statewide office-holders in Arizona, including the governor, and more than 75 percent of Maine lawmakers ran and won with public funding. Clean Elections promotes a greater diversity of people running for office and more competition.

Meaningful, common-sense campaign reforms do work. Californians can take heart that Clean Elections is a proven system that will bring change to politics. By passing Proposition 89, California will make elections about voters, not big campaign contributors.

NICK NYHART
Washington, D.C.

---

San Diego Union-Tribune on September 1, 2006

Taking issue with stand on Prop. 89

Contrary to the Union-Tribune's Aug. 24 editorial, “No on Prop. 89/It's badly written, unconstitutional and futile,” Proposition 89 is not an infringement on free speech. It is instead just the opposite: a proposal that would increase free speech. If California were to move to a clean money system where candidates (on a voluntary basis) could run for office using public money, then big money donors and personal fortunes would not be required for political campaigns. This would allow more people to run and more ideas to enter the marketplace. That's precisely what happened in both Arizona and Maine where clean money is already successful. Not only did more candidates vie for office, the races were more competitive, the political advertisements more substantive, and the voters were more interested. Elections became exactly what they are supposed to be – contests of ideas, not money.
Jean Seager
Coronado

---

Voice of San Diego Website on June 8, 2006

Following letter is in response to Editorial by James Goldsborough

You've hit the nail on the head again. Too bad you cannot reach a wider audience. While doing precinct work for this last election I notice a general apathy toward anythig political. I was told by many people that they wouldn't vote because whoever had the most money was going to win anyway. Maybe if we reinstated the draft, it would be like a slap in the face to people and they'd get out and vote these people out of office.
Frances Thomas
San Diego

---

Voice of San Diego Website on February 16, 2006

Devil's in the Details?

Thanks for the story, Saathoff Still Wearing the Pants. In reading that only new Mayor Jerry Sanders is the lone elected official in the city of San Diego who hasn't been backed by the firefighters union, the reported statements by Mitch Mitchell, an ex fire official himself, "that while the system is supposed to keep the unions excessive demands in check," and "that because there are some decisions that are being second-guessed, Ron Sathoff didn't make those decisions, the City Council and city manager did," are interesting to say the least.

Let me get this straight. In other words, if an elected official is facing a portion of a large campaign supporters main interest, we are somehow to presume that there is no undue pressure brought to bare on the either the information or suggested position that affects that supporters interests, and furthermore as to this pension debacle being "second-guessed," the City Council and city manager are wholly to blame for their support if the platform goes bad.

Forget everything else; it doesn't matter whether it was illegal, fraudulent, deceitful misinformation, it's completely their fault for allowing themselves to be taken. If Mr. Mitchell is correct, then this should serve as the quintessential example of why lobbying must be strictly curbed, elections need to be publicly funded and all other money or support be strictly limited and boldly reported before any print or media ad is offered to the public.

Mr. Mitchell is basically telling us citizens and the especially the council that "it is our job to screw you; if you're dumb enough to go along with it, tough luck, it's your fault." I hope we all remember his words when all the talk of a willingness to return to the bargaining table as a friend is being pre-run in all the media before negotiations begin.

Well sir, I for one don't believe that the majority of citizens are as beholden to the unions as may be suggested; what you're saying is precisely why so many are so distrustful of city government. And thanks to your admission, I will certainly more greatly scrutinize who the main supporters behind the candidates are as a basis for my vote
DON CORREIA
San Diego

---

San Diego Union-Tribune on February 7, 2006

These letters were writtien in response to an Editorial published in the UT on February 1, 2006. The UT article can be viewed here.

Clean-money Elections the Way to Go
Regarding “Phony reform / Arizona law shows folly of public financing” (Editorial, Feb. 1):

Both AB 583 in the California Legislature and the Arizona clean money law deal with independent expenditures by matching funds. Clean money candidates receive dollar-for-dollar matching funds to respond to independent expenditures such as an attack ad or a mailer from an outside group that benefits their opponent.

While independent expenditures have been sharply on the rise all over the United States, they have leveled off significantly in Arizona and Maine, where clean money systems are in place. These aberrations from the national trend are almost surely due to the fact that groups that want to make independent expenditures in these two states must decide whether it is truly worth the cost considering that they will simultaneously be funding their opponent.

The clean money system is about leveling the playing field and ensuring that elections are a contest of ideas, not money. The victory in the Assembly was truly a strong victory for reform and certainly something to celebrate.
BEVERLY G. BEAN
San Diego
====================
If the public financing of elections, as enacted in Arizona and contemplated in California, is such a fraud, why are five of the six declared Republican candidates for governor in that state running “clean” in the coming 2006 primaries?

You describe the bill by Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, as an “incumbent-protection racket” but make no reference to the various statistics that indicate otherwise – a 110 percent increase in competitive state Senate races, for example. You declare that “outsider candidates who accept public financing have far less money than they need for an effective campaign.” But in reality, unequal financial resources were a factor in only 2 percent of races in 2002, the second full cycle of publicly financed elections in Arizona.

Especially in San Diego, where we have been rocked by scandal after scandal, isn't it time that the voters reclaim ownership of their elected officials?
SIMON MAYESKI
San Diego
====================
The recent scandals involving lobbyists are very alarming. The most obvious method of addressing pending legislation would be for panels to present pro and con information to Congress as a whole. Each side would present its case, lawmakers could ask questions, discuss the issues, and then vote. A legislator who doesn't attend these sessions couldn't vote on the issue.

Highly paid lobbyists wining and dining legislators promote bribery or arm-twisting. And groups that can't afford lobbyists are not getting a fair or equal opportunity.

If our legislators have time to have lunch and golf with lobbyists, they have time to listen to presentations and discuss the issues. If we don't insist on changes to the status quo, we are essentially partners in the corruption.
CAROL SCHERBAUM
San Diego

---

San Diego Union-Tribune on January 24 , 2006

For True Democracy Have 'Clean Elections'

I am of the generation that was groomed by the public schools to believe in the concept of one "person," one vote. I worked on voter registration when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was instilling the dream that the vote was something sacred for citizens to fulfill the promise of the American dream of full democracy.

I still believe in that promise and I respect the soldiers sacrificing overseas for that principle of democracy. I feel it the duty of the citizens at home to fight for the kind of democracy we want to represent to the world as pure and unbought. For this reason we must reclaim the one-person/one-vote principle and our democracy with Clean Elections. We must purge ourselves of elections by the highest bidder. We must mandate our elections be paid for publicly by the voters. We need to free our candidates to focus on presenting issues and platforms for the voters to decide based on merit and not based on fundraising.

We want our politicians to talk to us directly and not be subject to the corrupting influences of campaign fundraising. Therefore, we must structure our elections to be "cleanly" funded.
D. ASHABI BLAI

---

San Diego Union-Tribune on January 10 , 2006

Publicly funded elections will stop corruption

Your Jan. 5 editorial "A needed scandal," in which you propose a series of "obvious reforms" to the problem of a corrupt political system, is nothing more than a Band-aid for a patient on life support.

The truly obvious reform, which your newspaper has opposed, is a system of publicly funded elections. This system cuts the ties between big money donors and our elected officials. In so doing, it frees officeholders from reliance on money from private sources, thus removing the source of the corruption. This sweeping reform is already successful in Arizona and Maine. It has recently been enacted in Connecticut, Portland and Albuquerque.

In California, AB 583 would allow voters to decide whether they want such a system. In addition to making our elected officials responsive to the electorate, public financing of elections would do much to restore confidence in our political system.
JEAN SEAGER
Coronado

---

San Diego Union-Tribune on November 30 , 2005

Randy Cunningham: Power, politics and a guilty plea

Strip clubs to buy City Council members, thousands. MZM to buy Randy Cunningham, millions. Enron to buy the White House, billions. The ability of big money to buy political influence and favorable legislation, priceless.

We have to admit this is an epidemic problem, and it is not going away unless we take action.

So read between the lines, realize that a politician's job is to keep his job or get a better job in the next election. "Exploratory committees" by potential candidates to see if they have "support" translates to "Where can I get big money for this campaign?"

If we want our government to work for the people rather than working to pay off the election campaign "loans," then we need to make some immediate and drastic changes to our political election system.
SHAUN McLAURIN La Costa

---

San Diego Union-Tribune on Thursday, October 6, 2005

Good Idea for City: Publicly Financed Campaigns

I was struck by the clarity in Robert C. Fellmeth's argument for cleaning up politics by having the public "buy" the politicians ("Time for the public to buy back its politicians," Opinion, Sept. 29). The money to run a campaign is now the only qualification for running for political office. It is just the luck of the draw that we are still getting a few good people, that along with money, have integrity.

But as Fellmeth described, our democracy is in big trouble. We must take it back. We can elect public officials who represent the "people's interest" (the public who paid for their campaigns), or we can elect public officials who represent "special interests" (the special interests who paid for their campaigns). The Clean Money Campaign in San Diego will give the people back their democracy. It's our choice: special interest or public interest.

Can we really afford not to support our public officials? It's our democracy.
CLAUDIA SATRIANO
Imperial Beach
====================
Fellmeth got it exactly right. I supported former Councilman Michael Zucchet's candidacy enthusiastically because I thought he could bring positive change to city government. I was extremely disappointed to see him indicted soon after taking office and eventually convicted of federal crimes related to campaign contributions. Living under the shadow of indictment forced Zucchet to put his potential for contribution in the background, and he never recovered. Our city government is poorer because of these years of wasted effort.

San Diego has among the toughest campaign contribution limits in the state, and we still get these kinds of scandals. The time has come to put aside concerns about publicly financed elections and move ahead with Fellmeth's proposal. We will be a lot happier with the condition of our city government once we make the changes he suggests.
BILL EADIE
North Park
====================
Recently I heard that a bill came up for a vote in Arizona that would have benefited big money interests, but hurt consumers. Both political parties told their state legislators that if they didn't vote for the bill, they would get no support in their next election. But Arizona has publicly funded elections, so instead of caving in to their party leadership, most legislators voted in the interests of their constituents.

In reading Fellmeth's piece, I couldn't help but think about Arizona and Maine, where publicly funded elections are already a reality. I just finished reading a book about Enron and the comparison to San Diego is uncanny. Enron paid auditors millions to audit documents they couldn't get. That's what San Diego did too. The corruption we've uncovered here may only be the tip of the iceberg.

As Fellmeth put it, "Reserving 1 percent of public budgets to make certain the rest is spent on the merits is rather a good investment." In my opinion it is the best investment we could make.
MARK E. SMITH

---

San Diego Union-Tribune on Thursday, August 11, 2005

Make `Giant Leap' to Public Campaign Finance

It's a giant leap of the imagination to consider using tax dollars to fund the campaigns of candidates for city offices. After all: (1) It's never been done that way. (2) It's more money out of my pocket.

Well, I'm making that leap. I really like the idea of voting someone into office who doesn't owe anything to big-money special interests. I'd like the chance to vote for a regular hard-working person with some new ideas, who's beholden to me, the voter. That could well be the basis of civic-minded reforms rippling all through local government.

Arizona and Maine have state-wide public financing of campaigns. They have figured out how to set monetary limits they can live with. Why can't we? I would happily pay $5 or $7 per year to support this sort of egalitarian election process. It's a radical idea that actually makes a lot of sense and most certainly would give us a stronger and more responsive democracy.
Martha Weesner

---

The San Diego Union-Tribune - Thursday, August 4, 2005

The editorial July 29 editorial "Campaign funds / Public financing cannot buy integrity" shows a complete disregard for the purpose of supporting a clean-elections bill. If the City Council members had to collect $5 from numerous city residents and accept the clean election provisions, the people of San Diego would be more likely to avoid things like the Cheetahs scandal or collusion between the council members and the labor groups that benefit from the pension fiasco.

Yes, the city would be taking on some costs, but won't the costs for the city and the public be lower in the long run? How much do we owe for the pension funding? What other deals have been made that haven't become public?
Cynthia Devereux

Privacy Policy