To the editor:
Re: "Vision continues charade on campaign finance rules," Feb. 1.
So Mark Hasiuk seems "dismayed" at the fact that Vision Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»wants to ban corporate and union municipal campaign donations, and to set contribution and spending limits, yet managed to raise more money than its NPA rival. C'mon, Mark, give us a break. You do understand this, so why pretend you don't? As long as parties can raise unlimited amounts, it would be stupid and suicidal for any party to forego aggressive fundraising. But some of us would like to change this game.
Since Vision was so successful at getting financial support this round, it would seem to be directly against its own interests to continue its push to limit contributions. Yet they're doing that. On this issue, it speaks to their integrity that they're renewing the call to reduce the role of big bucks in elections. Perhaps it's because true civic leaders would like to concentrate on good governance, and not spend half their energy on glad-handing potential donors.
Look at the circus in the U.S., where spending by corporations is unlimited and election results depend largely on who spends the most. I'd prefer to have my options determined by candidates' stand on the issues, not by who is the best at kissing up to the wealthy.
Jon Scop, Vancouver
