
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, March 24, 1994                   TAG: 9403260011
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A12   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: J. BRANDON BELL
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

THE VIRGINIA MILLIONAIRE ASSEMBLY

THANK YOU for your March 8 editorial on campaign finance (``Carry us back to real reform''). I'm glad you believe there needs to be ``real reform'' on such a vital issue to our democratic process. As we're all aware, the purpose of electing representatives by the people is for the people. The legislature is intended to be made up from the general citizens of the commonwealth.

My very real concern is that common citizens will soon no longer be represented by anyone other than the wealthiest people.

A recent article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch cited a 1993 report on the U.S. Congress that showed a 155 percent increase in personal money spent on campaigns as compared to 1991. In the same article, University of Virginia political analyst Larry Sabato said, ``Being wealthy really is becoming the price of admission to the House as well as the Senate.''

The price tag to elected office shouldn't be one's own personal wealth.

Senate Bill 487 imposed limits on the amount that an individual or political committee may contribute to certain candidates: $1,000 for House of Delegate candidates, $2,000 for Senate candidates, and $5,000 for candidates for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general. Limits didn't apply to contributions by a candidate to his or her own campaign.

Three previous floor amendments that I introduced would have created an equilibrium for any candidate who was up against an individual who put a large sum of money into his or her own race.

I'm not against financially successful people running for office, but their opponents must not be prohibited from matching the money a wealthy individual can give his or her campaign. This is simply a matter of fairness, nothing more.

The proposed campaign-spending-limit bills attempted to curtail the potential corrupting influence of big money in campaigns. In arguing for my amendment, I contended that the potential for corruption is just as great for wealthy individuals. It's highly questionable why someone would spend $250,000 of his or her own money for a job that pays $18,000 per year.

I agree with your editorial that there needs to be real reform. Yet your solution of ``limited public financing for state candidates'' is a very dangerous idea.

This basically would be a tax on citizens for political campaigns. The public wouldn't condone the idea of state-sponsored campaigns. Moreover, I don't believe the Virginia Constitution will allow this.

If we're going to have campaign reform in Virginia, it must be fair and balanced for all - especially for those candidates who must go to work every day to make a living.

J. Brandon Bell represents Roanoke and part of Roanoke County in the Virginia Senate.

by CNB