Dear Editor,

Public financing systems do not "force taxpayers to
pay for negative ads." In Arizona and Maine, where
they've had public financing for almost a decade, the
number of negative ads have actually gone down.

California's Prop 89, like successful systems
elsewhere, helps expand freedom of speech to more
qualified candidates; it does not seek to censor or
regulate what those candidates do with that freedom
(which of course would be unconstitutional).

Under Prop 89, ads run against publicly funded
candidates by independent expenditure groups (IE's)
will trigger matching funds for the former so they can
respond. This does two things: it helps keep the
playing field level, and it discourages those IE
attack ads (without unconstitutionally prohibiting
them).

This matching funds provision combined with the
limitations on the size of contributions to privately
funded candidates is what helps reduce the number of
negative ads. All voters benefit from a campaign
funding system that makes elections more about ideas
instead of who has the most money, and that's what
Prop 89 and similar systems do.

Craig Dunkerley
San Jose, CA