PUBLIC FORUM\Idea that anyone can buy election is 'condescending'.

The premise that anyone can "buy" an election to the presidency of the United States is fraudulent and condescending.

It assumes that Americans are so dumb that they will vote for the name they hear the most. All campaign spending can do is to buy advertising access; it cannot buy votes. Once you have the advertising access you have but two other choices; you must sell your ideas or else show you are the least odious of the scoundrels in the race. Failure to do either one means that all the money risked in the bid for office is for naught.

Every person elected to public office is elected by a vote of the people. In order to buy an office it would be essential to put sufficient money in enough voters' pockets to ensure that even with the secret ballot you would get a majority of the votes. Such an action would put Bill Gates' fortune to the test.

No one complains about a Ross Perot spending a substantial chunk of his fortune in a presidential bid. When it is Steve Forbes or Michael Huffington spending a portion of their fortunes, the air is filled with screams of "unfair."

What is the substantive difference between Ross Perot, Steve Forbes and Michael Huffington? Forbes and Huffington are moderately conservative Republicans.

Yes, the playing field should be level. It isn't, and there is no amount of money that will level it. Incumbent politicians will always have the edge even when the challenger has Brewster's millions at his disposal. If nothing else is true, when the sauce is thick enough Americans will vote for the scoundrel they know rather than the unknown whose only claim to fame is that he can blow half his fortune on a political race.

- John T. Reynolds

Woodland Hills

I'm appalled by the idea, shared now by a number of journalists and politicians, that Steve Forbes is bad for America because he has a lot of money. That's nonsense but it becomes ominous when politicians start pushing for spending limits to block the rich from spending their own money to run for political office.

History shows us that money or the lack thereof does not determine the quality of a candidate for public office. On the other hand, money frees a candidate like Forbes from bending to every lobbyist, foreign and domestic; special-interest group; and individual insight.

Since I was a small child, my family always talked about the rich politicians, driven by ideals, who was a cut above the rest of the pack. Isn't this what we still want?

The rich politicians - like Forbes and Perot - have made the process exciting, taken it out of the back rooms of the Republican and Democratic parties and brought issues like the flat tax, term limits, the balanced budget, welfare and Medicare reform directly to the people.

Is this bad? Do we need to outlaw it? If you're a beltway politician, you might say "yes," but if you're an American in the mainstream, I think you'd say "no."

How can the same politicians who refuse to reform the nefarious activities of lobbyists dare to pick up the cudgel of spending limits against independent outsiders?

Rich politicians aren't new. Let's begin with Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joe Kennedy, not to mention Jack and Bobby Kennedy, Perot, Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, and now Forbes.

If we don't want political-party domination, we better encourage wealthy people in greater number to share their wealth and participate in this great process.

Let's look, for a second, at Perot. While I no longer support him for president, his independence, idealism and wealth have made him one of the most important political reformers of the 20th Century. Perhaps Forbes is next.

More power to Steve Forbes. His ideas, independence and wealth have brought excitement to an otherwise dull and uninspiring crew.

- Jack L. Copeland

Northridge

In my opinion, campaign spending and contributions should be strictly individual, with contributions above a certain amount a matter of public record; likewise periodic checks on each potential or nominated candidate's treasury, including his own contributions, should be a matter of public record.

No contributions other than those of individuals should be allowed - no company, corporation, union, political action committee or group money. After all, it is individuals who vote, not groups. It is unlikely that everyone within a group favors the same person. Political Action Committees should be for recommendations only, not financing.

A wealthy person who spends a considerable amount of his own money will be seen as trying to buy the nomination or the election.

Taxpayers' money should not be used. Do away with the checkoff on tax forms.

- Larry Spangler

Glendale

I believe campaign spending should depend upon individual contributions. I do not believe that my tax dollars should be given to any candidate to run for any office. I believe that any candidate should be able to use whatever his gross yearly salary is toward his campaign. Because he is an individual citizen of the United States, he can contribute to himself.

I believe no organization or business should be allowed to contribute to an candidate's campaign.

- Sally Patterson

Northridge

All of the corporations that support candidates in elections are not doing it because it is their civic duty. No, they're looking for something in return. Steve Forbes will owe nothing to business upon the completion of his campaign. If anything, all of those advertising firms will owe Steve Forbes.

Already the AFL-CIO has come out with over $30 million dollars to try an unseat the Republicans. You don't think they'll want something in return?

Steve Forbes, if nothing else, is injecting millions of his dollars into the economy. He is not taking your union dues to finance a political agenda.

- Michael L. Sylvia Jr

Edwards

'Shock and disbelief'

I am in total shock and disbelief. How can the Social Security Administration be so stupid? It has paid out over $50,000 in unwarranted payments to a convicted murderer-rapist, William Bonin, over a 14-year period.

I have applied for Social Security disability benefits, due to a physical disability that I have. My former employer and the state of California have declared me disabled. But I was denied by the Social Security Administration.

All of my working adult life I have been an honest, law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. And I cannot get my tax-paid benefits from Social Security. So now, at my expense, I have to seek legal advice from a lawyer to try to get my benefits.

Isn't the system great?

- Robert Ford

Canyon Country

F. Lee Bailey

What's this? Former O.J. Simpson defense lawyer F. Lee Bailey sentenced to jail? Perhaps there is justice in this world after all.

- Ronald O. Richards

Los Angeles

Provoking Castro

I resent the actions of our guests - the Cuban exiles in Florida - who, after being granted political asylum in this country, are now trying to provoke us into a shooting war with Fidel Castro.

The irony of the situation is that they can instead sit back and do nothing. The deteriorating Cuban economy will do the job for them. This alternative sure beats another Bay of Pigs invasion.

- Lou Robins

Van Nuys