"Don't even pretend anyone can grow up to be president."

A run for your money

They want to be president but can they be prudent?

Editor, The Times:

The numbers are in. Presidential candidates in both political parties are raising huge amounts of money ["War-chest wars: Presidential hopefuls look at strategy, standing," Times, News, April 4, and "Romney tops fundraising among GOP; McCain's total disappointing," News, April 3].

It's obvious that, in addition to raising First Amendment issues, the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform law has been a flop in limiting campaign funds ["House votes to limit "soft money," lift party-spending cap," News, April 6].

What to do?

I'd suggest Congress rescind all limitations on political contributions, with two important provisos:

1) All contributions must be made by individuals, not organizations such as PACs, corporations or unions; and

2) All contribution amounts and the name of the donor must be publicly announced, with no delay, when received by a candidate.

The resulting transparency would help clarify who is trying to influence whom in our presidential contests.

— Bob Condon, Clyde Hill

Change for a dollar

Support candidates who worked for everything they haven't gotten

I see Democratic candidate for president Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., raised $23.5 million without using PACs or big donors; 100,000 donors — wow. ["Obama gives Clinton a run for the money," News, April 5, and "With $26 million, Clinton holds huge lead in early fundraising," News, April 2.]

Not one lead story in the past few weeks on the amazing turnout for rallies this guy is holding all over the country? The largest voter-funded campaign in history is certainly less interesting than a person who was given all their wealth, telling us how to engineer our society into their vision of a brave new future. Apparently, unless you have a huge mansion and are preaching global warming, you don't get big headlines.

In this future, I bet they still live in huge mansions but Al Gore's old friends, the Chinese and Native Americans, rage unchecked, polluting exponentially; while I am working two jobs to cover my carbon credits.

Choose someone who worked their way to the top: BaROCK the vote!

— Paul Suver, Seattle

A capital investment

Why don't we put a time deadline on money-collecting for presidential candidates and at the end of the deadline, the one with the most money buys the presidency for the next four years; but all the money collected from all the hopefuls (as well as the winner) goes to really doing some good for the country.

Don't even pretend anyone can grow up to be president. The most money, media and machine win every time.

— Harriet Benjamin, Seattle

The possessed wing

Why have a presidential election in 2008? Just declare the first candidate to reach $500 million in campaign donations the president.

— Scott Majury, Mercer Island

Buyer be aware

War chests squaring off in the media battlefield have come to represent the beginnings of presidential campaigns. Each candidate is fighting for larger portions of the donation pie. Yet, I can't help but feel deflated the way our political campaigns begin.

We all know the numbers — who is making less, who is in the lead. How many of us know the issues and where each candidate stands?

Only one out of the many has taken a public stance on international poverty: Democratic candidate John Edwards.

The Bush administration is consistently criticized because of the lack of attention to international issues and also for not taking part in global decisions, such as the Kyoto protocol.

We should become the international leader we were meant to be. Our newest presidential candidates should address our role in the world, not just in Iraq.

— Marisa Liu, Seattle

School mascots

Peacock or ostrich?

The contrast between Baltimore's St. Francis Academy, lauded by Leonard Pitts Jr. ["In Baltimore, one school considers the possibilities," syndicated column, April 1], and Seattle's Madrona School, slammed by Times staff columnist Danny Westneat ["District's obsessed with race," Local News, April 1], in educating poor and minority students couldn't be more clear.

The Academy uses uniforms, discipline, rigorous academics and high expectations to lead inner-city kids out of a life of no hope. Meanwhile, Seattle public-education bureaucrats blame "institutional racism," such as summer vacation and a "forward time orientation," for holding these kids back! One could hardly design a system more certain to ensure that poor and minority Seattle inner-city kids never succeed.

As Pitts says, "Consider the possibilities."

— Steven Adler, Seattle

You lose

Stalling wide open

The announcement this week that International Speedway Corporation (ISC) has ceased its efforts to bring a world-class motor speedway to Washington is a terrible disappointment ["NASCAR proposal runs out of gas," Local News, April 3].

Decision-makers in this state have made fools of Washington state in front of the entire country and have not represented their constituency. Presented with a project that would bring new money into our state with no new taxes or tax increases, our elected officials should have easily recognized it as a great economic benefit and worked hard to make it a reality. Thousands of new full-time, family-wage jobs would have been created.

Yet, the powers that be continued to demand more, more and even more until they finally succeeded in making it a no-win for ISC.

Greed, ignorance and a lack of foresight have been the undoing of what would have been a true win-win.

I am embarrassed to admit I'm a Washingtonian and appalled by the so-called "leadership."

— Lori Fitzwater, Sumner

Bank shot misses

The new Sonics arena is expected to generate between $78 million and $152 million in tax revenues over the next 25 years and yet the state is supposed to contribute $300 million and the city of Renton an additional $100 million ["Renton: Arena benefit is more than $$$," page one, April 5].

Given the higher figure, we're still looking at a net loss of $248 million, so now the arena is being marketed with "intangibles" such as "quality-of-life issues."

I'm sorry, but if we're really trying to improve our "quality of life," wouldn't the money be better spent on education, health care, parks or road maintenance?

I can't understand why this is even a debate anymore. No more corporate welfare.

— David Pfeifle, Lynnwood

Personal priorities

To change my state with rings

Whatever your views on marriage, there's no denying that it confers many protections and benefits to heterosexuals that same-sex couples are denied.

On March 8, 2004, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels directed city of Seattle departments to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they are allowed. Thanks to his actions, the spouses of gay city employees qualify for the same benefits that the city of Seattle offers to heterosexual couples.

Now the Pacific Justice Institute, based in California, has renewed its lawsuit against the city of Seattle to stop it from recognizing other states' marriage laws.

Same-sex marriage and domestic-partnership laws are no longer unusual or unheard of. San Francisco, New York, Portland and the state of Massachusetts — not to mention Mexico and several European countries — have enacted laws to ensure same-sex couples' civil rights. Even the state of Washington is poised to adopt a statewide domestic-partnership law.

Domestic partners' access to employee benefits does not offer true equality — but it is a beginning. The Seattle Commission for Sexual Minorities supports Mayor Nickels' stand for equal protection under the law.

As King County Superior Court Judge William Downing stated in his opinion in Andersen v. Sims: "The state has no rational basis for excluding same-sex couples from the rights and benefits of marriage."

Nor does the Pacific Justice Institute.

— Joseph Daniels, Eileen Terry, co-chairs, Seattle Commission for Sexual Minorities, Seattle

First Iraq, then romance

Fans of the movie "300" may be surprised to learn it depicts one of the earliest debts Western civilization owes to gays in the military.

Plutarch and Xenophon disagree as to the extent of the practice, but all authorities agree that many, perhaps most, of that era's Greek military elite took younger soldiers as lovers.

The movie is fiction; the actual history proves that one's love life is irrelevant to defending the nation.

Otherwise, we'd all be speaking Persian.

— Randall Winn, Seattle