THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, July 26, 1996 TAG: 9607260004
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A18 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: 56 lines
I read with interest associate editor Glenn Allen Scott's column ``Campaign contribution facts would be useful at the polls'' (Perspectives, July 4).
The essence of his perspective: ``Big money year in and year out exerts a disproportionate influence upon politics and government in our constitutional democracy - all too often for the enrichment of the few at the expense of the many.'' He then wrote, ``Nobody knows what to do about this hard reality.''
Trying to do something about this ``hard reality'' was exactly what the referenda on May 4, 1994, and May 7, 1996, in Virginia Beach were all about - an effort to take big money out of Virginia Beach City Council elections.
Virginia Beach Citizens For Electoral Reform proposed in the referendum of May 3, 1994, and the City Council-skewed referendum on May 7, 1996, that seven councilpersons be elected by voting district (about 60,000 people) instead of all being elected by the entire city at large (about 420,000 people).
The smaller population in which to campaign would be far less costly and could even be done on a door-to-door basis; the way it is now, a successful council campaign can take big money.
For example, in the 1992 election a candidate spent more than $80,000 to be elected. In 1994, more than $100,000 was needed for a candidate to be elected.
In 1996, two candidates obviously spent big bucks. One had many large ads in the Beacon and many TV commercials on all three channels. The other had expensive signs all over the city.
In 1994, one candidate was unopposed, and in 1996 two candidates were unopposed - probably because no one felt he or she could afford to run against them.
Mr. Scott is right in saying: ``The wonder is that as many of us vote as do given the odds against us.'' This is certainly borne out in Virginia Beach, where only about 25 percent of registered voters voted in the past two councilmanic elections. Some democracy!
In the case of the referenda, The Virginian-Pilot recommended against the balanced/district plan which could reduce greatly the influence of money.
Also, the big-money interests in Virginia Beach did not want to see their influence challenged, and so, of course, saw that the question in the May 7 referendum was skewed in their favor. As Mr. Scott wrote: ``If you and I judge that our interests are trampled in the clash of Titans, there are countless reasons to believe we are right.''
We could have done something about the influence of money in Virginia Beach councilmanic elections last May 7. Mr. Scott says in his column that it should be done. But on May 7 the editorial page said to vote against voting-district election.
You speak with ``forked tongue.'' You helped defeat the balanced/district system.
And, finally, you advocated full disclosure. Where is it for the May 7 election?
MAURICE B. JACKSON, chairman
Virginia Beach Citizens
For Electoral Reform
Virginia Beach, July 5, 1996 by CNB