Comments so far on this story:

1. Ronald wrote on November 15, 2007 8:35 PM:
"You're absolutely correct. Have in mind that the huge majority of donors would still give far less than the maximum, as I'm sure is not the case with the $320 limit. The major parties can spend what they want on a candidate. Why shouldn't an outsider candidate with popular support, but no party blessing, be able to make himself competitive? Donors are disclosed, and opponents publicize donors with issues. The limit is undemocratic, and squashes the little guy. Which is why it won't be raised."

2. ChulaVista wrote on November 15, 2007 8:54 PM:
"Wrong wrong wrong!! By putting the limit to 1k who do you think can afford that? Its only the people like developers or people with major interests in the city that will contribute that amount. Its the same people that bundle or have fundraisers at their homes now. This will only minimize the small donors even more. As long as you have big money involved in politics the special interests will always have power. Look at Congress and the CA legislature, does that seem better to you? Do the special interests have less influence in those systems since the limits are higher? Come on Scott, you are smarter than this. I need to bring you down to Chula have a talk with you."

3. Vlad wrote on November 15, 2007 9:15 PM:
"Amen, brother!"

4. W.T. Effman wrote on November 16, 2007 5:09 AM:
"Nah, raising donation limits would just raise the total amount of money being raised. The fat cats have plenty of money to cough up and they'll pay as much as they're allowed in order to control the candidate by having the purse strings in their hand. A better way to defeat the ugly effect money has on our political system is to pass a Clean Elections ordinance in San Diego. Check it out at link You'll be glad you did."

5. Christopher Hall wrote on November 16, 2007 8:34 AM:
"Chula Vista is right on: the folks who can donate $1k are more likely to be part of the problem, or at least the chances of them being part of the problem increase with their capacity to pay up. Note, I said 'likely' and 'chances,' meaning that there are wealthy people of conscience, but fewer. So now you ask what IS the problem with those who control great wealth? The problem is that moneyed interests are a VERY small percentage of our overall population, and they mostly hang together protecting their interests, and since they are interested in their money, they protect that from you. The best way for them to protect their money is to use relatively small bits of it to promote candidates who promise to protect their money. So, for example, indistinguishable Sanders was bubbled up to look like the mainstream candidate..."

6. mel wrote on November 16, 2007 8:47 AM:
"Amen,Effman. Public financing is the only way to go. Arizona adopted it. So did Vermont.. So did Portland, Oregon. The cost would be less than 1% of the City's general fund."

7. Christopher Hall wrote on November 16, 2007 8:59 AM:
"Cont'd --- By raising the limits to $1k or $5k or whatever, it just simplifies the process for the wealthy to bubble up their candidate of choice: just mainline the cash. However, by forcing bundles of smaller amounts, there is more work to be done fundraising, and the non-moneyed interests who can't mainline the cash can still raise it in small bundles using their labor, the one resource they have.// There is no evidence that independent candidates of median wealth can ever put together a fundraising campaign: they can't get the word out about their platform for lack of cash, nobody has ever heard of them, they can't solicit donations as a nobody, and they fail.// The biggest problem is that money comes from who has it, and they ain't giving it to you unless you promise to protect and increase what they have: power to make more money."

8. Frances O'Neill Zimmerman wrote on November 16, 2007 10:00 AM:
"More money in elections just means more expensive elections. Raising permissible campaign contributions for poor "independents" will be matched and exceeded by heavy-hitting special interest bundlers, resulting in spiraling costs of election to public office. The playing field will never be level until there is genuine, strictly enforced, public financing of elections. I'm not sure what that would entail exactly -- maybe Mel or the voice could explain the way it works -- but without public financing, there is no hope. While we're at it, maybe we could limit the duration of campaigns, to focus voters' minds on candidates and issues and, bottom line, to get it over with."

9. Larry wrote on November 16, 2007 10:26 AM:
"Why do you feel the need to interject your opinion when you already have two more credible contributors debating the issue?"

10. CMR wrote on November 16, 2007 11:58 AM:
"Hmmm...there is _SOME_ truth here but I think what it really speaks to is that the $270 limit for council races gives advantages (but not overwhelming) to candidates who are either able to tap into large networks of several hundred individuals who can give a decent amount of funds. But it is not a slam dunk that they win. Candidates such as Murphy & Maienschien, and Mathis all emerged as a the "dark horse" against the candidates of the left and right "establishments". Each did it through focused grassroots efforts. Lets see what happens during this next 2 year cycle of open seats before proclaiming that retail politics in San Diego local elections is dead."

11. CP wrote on November 16, 2007 2:54 PM:
"What kind of good-hearted independent candidate has 600 friends who'll be able to give them $1000 contributions? I don't think this suggestions solves the problem."

12. Dale Peterson wrote on November 16, 2007 3:33 PM:
"I sure like the intent and thought process behind bringing this piece for commentary. I agree with Frances and others. I just don't believe raising the personal campaign limit ceiling would help the independent candidate that much. I do think that we need to strongly consider the public financing of campaigns. Twenty years ago I derided anybody who suggested the public finance solution. So, I've done a 180. Also, the suggestion of a shortened campaign time would be an interesting discussion. Seems to me that a shortened time frame might favor an incumbant."

13. jjinsd wrote on November 16, 2007 5:42 PM:
"The idea of publicly financed elections sounds appealing but how can you tell someone that they can't publicize their support of a candidate. It's every individual's (and corporation I think) First Amendment right. It seems to me that if we publicly finance elections, Business & Labor leaders will run independent campaigns in support of their chosen candidates. So the electorate gains nothing except the additional expense of financing candidates. I don't have any answers but I'd support public campaign finance if it didn't have this glaring loophole. Or have the proponents addressed this and I've missed it. Thanks!"

14. Brian Polejes wrote on November 16, 2007 9:06 PM:
"Raising the contribution limit only worsens the domination of politics by those with the money to play. We need to do what Arizona and Maine have already done in their elections; offer a clean money alternative in which candidates demonstrate their viability by raising many small contributions and then receive public financing. It would cost taxpayers a lot less than the current interest-based campaign finance approach and would give Cougar Ringwald a much better chance."