The editorial ``Politics and Money,'' Aug. 24, implies that the political action committees (PACs) are to blame for ``perpetual campaigning,'' or at least that it would be alleviated if special interests were restrained.
Perhaps the ``perpetual campaigning'' is linked more closely to the frequency of campaigns rather than to forms of political expression and association being accused by the editorial. The ideal of keeping the holders of political authority in syncopation with the general citizenry is discounted by the reference to ``perpetual campaigning.'' How can the tentative pseudo-citizen participation through voting and speaking out be effective without the fundamental principle of regularly scheduled elections and ``perpetual campaigning''?
The editorial also disregards the advantages of PACs in a pluralistic society. These special-interest groups have received negative attention; however, these physical representations of constitutional rights serve as a critical point of access from citizens to public policy. Through these organizations citizens are empowered to ``participate directly in the electoral and lawmaking process.'' PAC funding is a marked improvement over complete individual sponsorship of candidates or the elimination of candidates who are not wealthy enough to fund their own campaigns. Mark Kokanovich, Tempe, Ariz.
Your letters are welcome. For publication they must be signed and include your address and telephone number. Only a selection can be published, and none acknowledged. Letters should be addressed to "Readers Write," and can be sent by Internet E-mail (200 word maximum) to OPED@RACHEL.CSPS.COM, by fax to 617-450-2317, or by mail to One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115.One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115.