'Clean' Campaigns Make Good Sense
Itâ€™s curious to see the repeated attacks on â€œclean moneyâ€ by columnist Phil Stanford, using Mayor-elect Tom Potter as an example to show how politics â€œshouldâ€ be done (Surely, we must have others, On the Town, Nov. 30).
Stanford ignores this reality and then teases readers with the illusion of breakthrough campaign self-regulation.
We need a better system, not an old suggestion.
Stanford also suggests that would-be clean candidates are lazy. Thatâ€™s backward! When the playing field is leveled for all candidates, it is their message and relationship with their constituents, not special interests, that must be strong; sloth is not an option. Can you say the same for incumbents across the country on Nov. 2?
Clean elections offer candidates the choice of a viable, legally established and fairly monitored system to run on merit, not on dollars. It gives the public more choices and more accessible candidates, not a one-off for a special individual in a single race.
Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt favored this â€œpublic good.â€ Clean money is a proven reality for the price of a hamburger.
James Bennett Saxon
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)