EDITORIAL:

There’s a famous quote misattributed to Illinois Sen. Everett Dirksen. “A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you’re talking real money.”

In Huntington Beach the politicos are squabbling over campaign contribution limits that range from $300 to $500 to no limit. A hundred bucks here, a hundred bucks there, pretty soon, you’re talking a bunch of nonsense.

First of all, it’s ridiculous and petty to be battling over $200, but certainly “no limit” shouldn’t even be an option considering the city’s sordid history with political corruption.

And while the city has taken giant strides to move past some of those scandals, they are not that far away in the rear-view mirror that we should dismiss them easily.

For many years it appeared big oil played a major role in the city’s politics, and then the developers had their say. And it all came down to who had the most money to spread around. Do we really want to let moneyed special interests have an advantage over the average voter?

Just take a look at the national presidential election for proof that the McCain/Feingold law reforming campaign contributions has worked. Sure there are still some loopholes in the law. For instance, the role that outside special interest groups can play by working independently of the campaigns is still unclear, but it’s obvious that small donations are making the difference. Sen. Barack Obama has relied mostly on small donations, largely collected through his website, and eventually lapped his competitor, Sen. Hillary Clinton, who chose to fatten her coffers through big donations from wealthy donors. Clinton actually caught her second wind when she turned to $25 and $50 donations through her website.

Grass-roots fundraising is the future, and that’s as it should be. Only the powerful special interests favor elections rigged in their favor when they can flood a campaign they support with cash.

The rest of us want our votes to matter and we sincerely want the challengers to be on a more even playing field with the better-known incumbents.

It’s almost laughable when Councilman Don Hansen argues that he strongly leans toward unlimited contributions as a way to balance out political action committees.

“All campaign contribution limits do are write insurance policies for incumbents,” Hansen said.

And how does he expect a repeal of limits to help challengers when incumbents are in a far better position to use their connections to make rain?

No matter what limit is set it will always be difficult for a challenger to unseat an incumbent. That’s just politics. But the cap makes it easier than no limit at all.

City Council members should do the right thing for voters — not themselves — when they consider this proposal at their next meeting. The level of the limit — $500 or $300 — isn’t as important as maintaining a cap. So put a lid on it, City Council.