Reform needed for fair campaign financing

"Behold a fight between two billionaires, with the Aurora mayor in the middle" (Chicago Tribune editorial, Jan. 23), shows billionaire Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker set to face off against Aurora Mayor Richard Irvin financed by billionaire Ken Griffin.

This clearly demonstrates the power of large political contributions to deliver results. What is the likelihood of anyone who is vastly outspent winning any election?

Corporate and wealthy interests contribute heavily to reduce their taxes, gun interests to sell more guns, pharmaceuticals to prevent Medicare from negotiating drug prices, insurance companies to block Medicare for all and keep selling policies, financial interests to get preferential tax treatment and fossil fuel companies to slow the transition to clean, renewable energy.

Fossil fuel companies have such a huge fund that Republicans at the federal level will not act against climate change for fear of facing a strongly financed primary opponent even though global warming threatens the environment that supports our way of life.

Most people make no political contributions and most people who do contribute give between $10 and $100. But some donors give thousands even millions of dollars, elevating their priorities to the forefront, frequently to the disadvantage of ordinary people.

Some states have successfully adopted public funding of campaigns. The For the People Act which passed the U.S. House of Representatives, but not the Senate, would match contributions up to $200 by six times the contribution amount with public funds for candidates who did not take contributions over $200.

Government is more likely to work for everyone if everyone pays for election campaigns. About $10 yearly per person would pay for federal elections.

If we want public confidence that government decisions are based on merit without pay to play, conflict of interest and favoritism, we must find a better way to finance our elections.

Richard Barsanti

Western Springs