Campaign Funding

Information about politicians who accept money from pro-gun organizations (letter, May 3) is available from Project Vote Smart at http://www.vote-smart.org or (888) 868-3762. PVS has lots of information, including the source of all campaign funding, as well as how our elected officials have voted and how they are rated by a wide range of special-interest groups. SUSAN GUILFORD Orange

Despite bitter attacks in recent weeks, the two candidates for mayor of Los Angeles grudgingly conceded in a debate Sunday night that their rival was (mostly) honest and not so different on many of the plans they have for leading the city. That didn't mean City Councilman Eric Garcetti and Controller Wendy Greuel didn't find plenty of opportunity for attacks on each other's trustworthiness and independence. But they also laid out records that they said made them most qualified to replace Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who is leaving office June 30 after serving the maximum two terms.

Re "Money for nothing," editorial, March 5 The Times asserts that Congress should wait until after the 2008 election before fixing the presidential public funding system. But we can safely predict what will happen in 2008 if the general election candidates go without public funding -- they will spend much of their time at $2,300-a-plate fundraisers, in a race for cash that will eclipse the debate over the real issues. We shouldn't wait to fix the system for 2012. The 2008 election is shaping up as a competitive contest, and no one can confidently predict the winner.

Eric Garcetti talked about how he has led on pension reform and would like to bring "geek chic" to Los Angeles, so engineers educated in the city would stay to build tech jobs. Wendy Greuel touted her recent endorsement from President Bill Clinton and how she is a strong leader, not a flashy campaigner. The two candidates for mayor of Los Angeles made robust cases for themselves in a televised debate Monday night from the USC Health Sciences Campus east of downtown, but they became most passionate when they squared off again on the question of who would be the most independent leader.

Re "Newhall Ranch Project," Ventura County letters, May 16. John Bergamo's letter stating that legal bribes in the guise of campaign contributions were the key to the approval of the Newhall Ranch mega-project by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is right on. Newhall Land & Farming Co.'s largess has been generous to the political players involved. A description of the corrupting influence of such payments is right there in the Bible, Deuteronomy 16:18: "You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality; and you shall not take a bribe [substitute "campaign contribution"]

WASHINGTON - Former U.S. Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) and his wife, former Chicago Alderwoman Sandi Jackson, pleaded guilty Wednesday in what prosecutors said was a conspiracy to siphon about $750,000 in federal campaign funds for their personal use. Jackson entered a negotiated plea of guilty on one felony count of conspiracy to commit false statements, wire fraud and mail fraud. He could face years in prison when he is sentenced this summer. Sandi Jackson pleaded guilty to a charge of willingly filing a false tax return, tied to the same allegations that the couple repeatedly tapped the former congressman's campaign fund, used the money for personal expenses and then made fraudulent campaign and tax disclosures to cover up the misconduct.

In the midst of renewed public outrage over its handling of clergy sex abuse, the Los Angeles Archdiocese is considering a $200-million fundraising campaign that could erase debts brought on by the scandal. The archdiocese has hired a New York company, Guidance In Giving Inc., to study the feasibility of a large-scale fundraiser that would shore up a bottom line hit hard by costly abuse litigation. It would be the archdiocese's first capital campaign in 60 years. The archdiocese's $660-million settlement in 2007 with more than 500 victims was the largest in U.S. history.

SACRAMENTO - After a frantic court battle, state election officials succeeded Monday in forcing an Arizona group to disclose the identities of contributors that provided $11 million to a California campaign fund. But the revelations added little clarity for voters. The mystery donors turned out to be other nonprofits, whose individual contributors remained secret. The money started with the Virginia-based Americans for Job Security and was transferred to a group called the Center to Protect Patient Rights.

No one today can overlook that it's California's self-indulgent initiative process that's attracting the big political bucks into the state, the way a magnet attracts scrap iron. Year in, year out, the torrent of spending on initiative campaigns swamps the money spent on traditional candidates. Tuesday's ballot, with 11 propositions attracting $350 million in campaign spending, is another data point. Not even Meg Whitman's gubernatorial campaign in 2010, in which the candidate spent $144 million of her own money on her way to a $160-million bottom line, comes close - and that exercise in futility set a spending record.

Brother, can you spare $3? It hasn't quite come to that, the commander-in-chief, sunken-eyed, raggedly clothed, tin cup in hand, begging for political pocket change. But the latest solicitation from President Obama is arresting for its subject line - “I will be outspent” - and what it says about the titanic financial forces unleashed in good part by his 2008 campaign. It was, after all, Obama who reversed a promise and opted out of the public finance system, which was instituted as part of the post-Watergate reform movement.

WASHINGTON - When the Supreme Court ruled that corporations had the right to political free speech, it set loose a tidal wave of campaign money that helped elect a new Congress in 2010 and is now reshaping the presidential race. But the impact of the Citizens United decision has been as surprising and controversial as the ruling itself. Although the high court's 5-4 decision is best known for saying that corporations may spend freely on campaign ads, the gusher of money pouring into this year's campaigns has mostly not involved corporate funds.

It's election season at the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and once again what passes for a campaign is taking on surreal qualities. Los Angeles County Supervisor Don Knabe has collected nearly $352,000 for his reelection bid from an array of contractors, builders, developers and casinos, even though no major challenger was on the horizon and he's now running unopposed. Two of Knabe's colleagues have raised more than $800,000 between them. One has no challenger and the other faces a little-known Palmdale convenience store owner who has pledged to spend less than $1,000 on his campaign.