Let me say how very much I have enjoyed today’s exchange with Gil. I want to thank voiceofsandiego.org for giving us this opportunity and thank Gil for his stimulating comments.
Gil raises several interesting issues in his latest post including the proposition that my position implicitly argues that things in the body politic were better off before contribution limits. I would certainly argue things are not better as a result of contribution limits.
 |
| John Kern |
There is not one iota of evidence that “Contribution limits diffuse the influence of the wealthy few.” Nor can one ascribe to any one factor, let alone campaign contribution limits, the changes in power in the city of San Diego since Pete was elected in 1971.
But if one were to include in the discussion the entire range of so-called campaign and political reforms of the past 35 years — and it would be valid to say that the state of mind that produced contribution limits also produced the other so-called reforms and their unintended consequences — I would certainly be willing to take the side of those would say things were better without them. But that is a different discussion best left to another day.
My very best wishes to all.
— JOHN KERN