To:         The Dallas Morning News
Date:      September 16, 1997
Subject: Al Gore and the Chinese; campaign financing
Result:   not printed due to limited space

Dear Editor,

I don't like this business with Vice President Al Gore. What I mean is all the people jumping on the bandwagon to condemn him for his fund-raising practices, like he invented something. To think that every other President and Vice-President we have had any time in the recent past, as well as most Congressmen, have not done many times what Vice President Gore is accused of doing is ridiculous. And those politicians doing the criticizing are liars and hypocrites.

The thing is, the way our system is set up, this kind of activity is required just to even survive. And in the course of doing that, I am sure that, yes, there has been much abuse that has gone along with it.

But then there is the question of who would be most likely to be able to take advantage of our system, and of the access that providing money to politicians brings. Would it be foreigners, such as those solicited by Mr. Huang, who with many of them, all they want to do is get their picture taken with the President or Vice President?

I think not. Even if maybe foreign people and governments hope to gain something by donating money to politicians - which they undoubtedly do and have done with both parties - I don't think there is any American President or Vice President who has said that here are foreign interests that have donated to my campaign, therefore I am going to do something for them that I otherwise would not do and which would be against our best interests. At the most, all they would get or be promised for their money would be a hearing of their views and concerns.

Rather, the people who are most likely to be able to seek and to get undue influence in behalf of their own selfish designs are the special interests that exist within our own country. They are the ones who have the basic proximity that is also needed, besides money, to be able to influence politicians. Tobacco companies would certainly be a good example, where an industry has gotten strong government support for a product that is clearly very dangerous and costly to society, just because of their donations to politicians and their campaigns.

And when I reflect on which political party is more likely to attract such donations, it seems that that would be the Republican Party.

The fact is, I personally feel better about the Democrats taking - if you will - more creative measures to get donations than the Republicans, just because their constituency on the whole has a lot less money than that of the Republicans, with fewer "fat cats" expecting due consideration for their donations. The alternative, to a large degree, is to have a system where only one party can afford the great expense of conducting political campaigns.

In conclusion, one thing that really got to me was the suggestion that because Vice President Gore may have solicited donations from Buddhists, his commitment to the separation of church and state was therefore compromised. As if there are not huge amounts of money solicited and received from the affluent Christian religious right for the promotion and legislation of its interests, with the primary beneficiary being the Republican Party.

Thank you, John Vehon