Public Campaign Funds Check Big Money

By Nancy Neff, Letter to the Editor

Editor -- Tim Keller isn't defending free speech; he's defending expensive speech (Open Forum, "Chilling political speech," Feb. 18).

Before Arizona adopted the Clean Elections Act, 79 percent of elections were won by the candidate who spent significantly more money. Under Clean Elections, that number dropped to 2 percent.

In Keller's opinion, this is the result of favoritism that supports those who choose public financing. I can live with "favoritism" that protects the rights of the 99 percent of us who don't earn more than half-a-million-dollars a year or take money from special interests.

Our Constitution was built on checks and balances. We need to check the runaway power of money in government. Full public financing of campaigns does just that, protecting the rights of the non-rich to be heard.


Palo Alto

See the article on San Francisco Chronicle 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.)

   Become a Clean Money Member