Debate Over Campaign Funds

Gary Galles (Commentary, Dec. 16) makes a good point about the erosion of constitutional restraint and the pervasive intrusions of big government. He is probably right in arguing that campaign finance reform, by itself, will not solve the problem. However, he presents no theory of where big government came from.

If not the cause, big political contributions from special interest groups are at least conducive to the growth of proactive government. Campaign finance reform is among the steps necessary to reverse the trend.

MIMI GERSTELL

Pasadena

* How naive of Galles not to realize that campaign contributions by special interests are the fuel that drives unrestricted government. How about restricting both?

GERRY LEVY

Oxnard

* Molly Ivins must be kidding about calling Sen. John McCain the Democrats’ worst nightmare (Commentary, Dec. 15).

If I were a Democrat, I would be ecstatic at the prospect of McCain being elected. With campaign finance reform as the centerpiece of his platform, McCain would actually be a strong force in giving the media a virtual monopoly in the market of political speech. If anyone tried to buy billboard space for a local candidate and the price exceeded McCain-Feingold limits, for instance, he would be in violation of the law.

In light of the blatant left-of-center media bias in this country, this would be like letting the rats watch the cheese. Incumbency would skyrocket and anyone not toeing the corporate (read big government/big business) party line would simply be omitted from any national media exposure.

MIKE VILLANO

Aliso Viejo