DATE: Friday, October 17, 1997              TAG: 9710170005

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B10  EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Letter 

                                            LENGTH:  161 lines

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR - THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT

Campaign finance reform: Do something!

Nearly two dozen readers responded to ``Gone, but not forgotten,'' last Saturday's editorial on campaign finance reform. The editorial called the quashed McCain-Feingold reform bill ``flawed'' but ``a noble effort,'' and concluded that ``the public must keep demanding a cleanup until we get it.

Here's what readers had to say:

The biggest portion of this problem is the person you see looking back at you from the mirror. If we wouldn't elect crooks, then we wouldn't have crooks. We're much too complacent about crime in the government, and I consider the use of excessive campaign funds a criminal enterprise.

We need to do what everybody else does in other countries when they're dissatisfied with the government: They don't elect them for another term. Unfortunately, we don't want to use the election booth as our means of expressing our unhappiness.

If you're not part of the solution, then you're still part of the problem.

Don Shearer Jr.

Virginia Beach

We already have campaign finance reform. All we have to do is enforce the laws that are on the books.

Obviously Clinton and his gang have violated the laws and it's a big smokescreen, trying to say that we need campaign finance reform when we already have laws. They have broken the law and they are guilty.

Thomas Carros

Chesapeake

I'm retired from the Navy and I'm currently teaching ethics at St. Leo College. Because I preach to my students that every voice counts, I'm calling.

I no longer have faith in the Senate committee's investigation of campaign finances for the '96 election because they're not willing to discuss campaign finance reform. If this Congress won't pass something, because of incumbents' concerns over losing finances, why don't they pass it to take place at some future date, five or six years from now?

The Senate investigation is all a sham now. It doesn't have any point if they're not willing to discuss finance reform.

Rebecca Hubble

Norfolk

I'm tired of hearing the politicians say that people do not care how their moneys are received. I very much care and would like to see a big change in the way our people make their careers in Washington.

Phyllis Jones

Norfolk

Let the politicians raise as much money as possible and place the money in the public trust. Cancel the election and tell them we don't need them anyway and then we can spend the money on education.

Austin Jersild

Norfolk

Spending should be limited, whether it's hard money or soft money, to a given amount. Incumbents always have an advantage, so challengers should be allowed 20 percent more. After that amount is gone - no matter who spends it, PACs, third parties or the candidates themselves - no more expenditures should be allowed.

For local races, spending should be limited to that geographical area. Same for Senate and House races - expenditures and contributions should be restricted to the state or district. But there still should be an absolute dollar limit. This would eliminate soft money, because everything spent would count toward the total.

Ronald Pidball

Chesapeake

I agree that there's too much money floating around out there. Shorter time limits should be put on a campaign. Long enough for issues to be discussed. I would think not over six months. Maybe the primaries could take care of it and then we could have a hiatus on campaigning.

Another thing: I agree about the free air time. The money that the TV stations would lose is minuscule compared to their overall bankroll.

Tom Clark

Virginia Beach

My suggestion is to eliminate television advertising. That would create an even playing field. Most of these television ads are real quick sound bites mixed with a lot of misinformation anyway.

B-Cat Graham

Norfolk

The campaign finance question is a tough one in that there are some abuses. But if you have some money and you want to donate it to support someone who supports your political point of view, I think the First Amendment, free speech, gives you the right to spend that money to support that candidate.

Seems to me the best thing is to require that every political organization and nonprofit organization be required to annually or quarterly list the name of the person, address, etc., and amount of every contribution received.

Bob Armour

Virginia Beach

Perhaps Congress should start looking at why the American people aren't voting. It's hardly encouraging to vote when we have things like this going on, where large groups of people are favored because of the money they can put up for an election. I also feel that time should be shortened in how long these people can run for office. I am very tired of it already, months before the election is to take place.

Shirley Sudduth

Virginia Beach

Sen. Arlen Specter is out of his realm when he speaks of taking away from TV time, inasmuch as TV has gotten billions of dollars of concessions from the federal government for the high-density frequencies.

A public service would be for them to contribute the time, so the candidates can voice their message and cut down on the soft money.

Christine Linehan

Virginia Beach

Putting the contributor's name and amount on the Internet, as a way of publicizing the amount given, would be excellent. I do believe that campaign reform is necessary and any and all ads and articles on that should be pursued to pressure Congress to continue working on the reform.

Kathleen Morris

Virginia Beach

My husband and I are extremely disappointed that Congress has failed to take action. We're also very concerned that they've targeted what Clinton has done. We feel that this is a minor offense compared to what Reagan and Bush did. Congress made this big deal about Clinton and Gore trying to raise money, to be able to be competitive with the big bucks that the Republicans were able to accumulate.

Something must be done. Your point about free time on TV, and making who contributes money to each candidate available immediately through the use of computers, are excellent ideas and would certainly make the public have a better, informed vote.

Elizabeth Andrews

Portsmouth

There should be a radical change, limiting campaigning to five months before the election.

On the issue of free speech: That applies to individuals and not at all to corporations. Individuals can speak for corporations, but it should be limited in gifts to a set number.

There's no longer any party building. The Virginia Beach Democratic organization is an excellent example. It's splintered, it doesn't pick up issues, it lacks money, it doesn't raise money.

This campaign finance business is subverted. Limit terms, provide free TV coverage.

Dan Creedon

Virginia Beach

I am really, really disgusted with Congress for failing to pass McCain-Feingold II. I'm not very happy with my president and vice president, but until Congress does something, they're not doing anything wrong, as far as I can see. It's not been proved that the president and vice president are doing anything wrong as long as they let these laws stay on the books.

Your last sentence says it all ``Still, if the alternative is business as usual . . . even a flawed or fragmentary reform is worth a try.'' I certainly believe in that. They've got to do something.

Jacqueline Holley

Norfolk

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu