'Clean' Campaigns Make Good Sense
It’s curious to see the repeated attacks on “clean money†by columnist Phil Stanford, using Mayor-elect Tom Potter as an example to show how politics “should†be done (Surely, we must have others, On the Town, Nov. 30).
Candidates would voluntarily limit contribution amounts? As
most voters know, Potter, who limited the size of campaign
contributions, is the exception, not the rule. It also must
be noted that Potter himself supports the idea behind the
city effort to reform campaign finance.
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. That’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 “public good.†Clean money is a proven reality for the price of a hamburger.
James Bennett Saxon
Volunteer, California Clean Money Campaign
Marina del Rey, Calif.
See the article on Portland Tribune website
(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.)