Campaign cash is voters' nightmare

The race for California's U.S. Senate seat, to be decided Nov. 8, is fast becoming a battle of financial firepower. Money, rather than their positions on the issues, is proving to be the most important ally of both Democratic candidate Diane Feinstein and Republican challenger Mike Huffington.

We're ignoring, for now, the other candidates in this election - a feat made easier since Huffington has already spent more than $10 million of his own money on the campaign.

Feinstein, by comparison, has spent only a measly $6.5 million to date.

The charges they have leveled at each other in prime time TV spots attack the wealth that both possess - which, ironically, makes such advertisements possible.

One Feinstein campaign commercial calls Huffington a "Texas oil millionaire." By using h is reputed $70 million bankroll in a timely and tactical manner, Huffington retaliates the next day by calling Feinstein the "3rd richest senator" in one of his campaign spots.

The use of quick responses and television access to control, shape and change voters' minds on a daily basis makes this the most technologically evolved Senate campaign ever. And the costliest.

Those candidates with more modest incomes cannot hope to compete on a fair level in this election. Not everyone can sell a Tex as petroleum company for $70 million (as Huffington once did) when the budget gets tight.

We believe there needs to be some regulation of personal spending on campaigns for public office. We suggest that if a candidate wishes to spend more than a predetermined amount of their personal money on a campaign, they would be required to contribute an equal amount into a general fund open to all other candidates.

Not only would this create a balance of equal campaign opportunities for all candidat es, it would also move us toward eliminating the two- party gridlock that has today's legislatures in such a stranglehold.

Another possibility is eliminating political advertising altogether and instead holding publicly televised forums (based solel y on newsworthiness rather than the almighty dollar), where candidates would present their platforms and their attacks on each other at the same time.