Dear editor, Your editorial of Sept. 24 opposing Proposition 89, the clean money campaign, draws the wrong conclusion.

You say that Proposition 89 attempts to address too many different “perceived evils” in today’s campaign system. We had the lowest voter turn out in California in the June 2006 primary in 80 years, with only 20 percent voting. Doesn’t that say something about voters’ discontent with the present perceived evil system?

You were correct in saying the cost for fairer campaigns would come from a corporate tax which is now 8.8 percent and would increase to 9 percent. However, you failed to mention that only 6 percent of the largest corporations in California, including 46 corporations with more than $1 billion in California receipts which paid the minimum state franchise tax in 2001, would be taxed. In other words, 94 percent of California companies would not pay any increase in taxes for fairer, clean campaigns. These figures are according to the California Budget Project.

Your editorial says that it is not clear if Proposition 89 passed that it would improve campaigns in California. Look at the track record of Arizona, Maine and other states and cities who have implemented similar laws. In those places, elections have become more competitive, voters have more choices and a broader array of candidates have been able to run for office and win without being well connected to wealthy interests. Plus, overall campaign costs are down.

Proposition 89 would increase public confidence in government, as seen in an Arizona poll that showed 85 percent of voters felt that clean elections are important to their state. And as a 2003 GAO report on Maine’s clean money election system found, voters had increased confidence in government. 

Closing campaign finance loopholes as part of a comprehensive reform package is another part of Proposition 89. It limits big donors to $7,500 to independent expenditure committees, provides matching grants for clean candidates targeted by independent attack ads and strengthens disclosure requirements so big donors can not hide behind deceptive committee names. Strong enforcement provisions include removal from office and possible jail time, to make sure reforms work. 

Voters are smart enough to know that taking big money out of elections makes government more responsive to voters, not to big money. I encourage your readers to learn more about Proposition 89 at www.yeson89.org.

Sharon Macklin

Napa