I am pleasantly surprised to read in a liberal publication about constituents up in arms about taxpayer funds doled out to politicians.
Matching funds for city elections is just wrong.
Los Angeles is already facing a two hundred million dollar deficit. If that's not all, the city will be facing a run-off election to fill a seat vacated by another politician who was seeking higher office. These sudden moves by office seekers are costly and unjust to voters who deserve leadership, not politicians who lead on but fail to deliver.
The argument that only wealthy people have a shot at winning office is specious at best, considering that voters deserve to evaluate candidates who have made something of themselves in the private sector. However, if a candidate can generate enough enthusiasm, nothing can stop him or her from rising to higher office, whether that candidate has a significant personal fortune or not.
Regarding the salary of LA City Council members, I would like to hear more about politicians who would be willing to forgo not so much their take-home pay, but how much they plan on collecting from the state long after they leave public service. That sacrifice would command a lot more respect in these local elections, where future politicians will have to take an ax to the outrageous public employee benefits in order to balance strained budgets.