There should be a limit to the amount one can contribute to campaigns for or against candidates for city council. There should also be limits to independent expenditures supporting or opposing candidates or local ballot measures.

It can be argued that interest groups provide contributions and that candidates will then offer to provide policy favors for the interest groups. Large contributions can give less- qualified candidates an edge over more qualified candidates.

The public assumes that candidates use contributions to provide truthful information about their qualifications for office, and voters consider this information rationally when casting their votes.

Implementing campaign finance reforms will help ensure that individuals and interest groups will have an equal opportunity to participate in the election process and minimize the appearance of favoritism caused by excessive contributions and expenditures in campaigns.

The cities of Hayward, Livermore, Tracy, San Jose, Folsom, Davis, Dublin, Roseville, Gilroy, Fremont, Sacramento, Stockton, Walnut Creek and many others have already adopted ordinances to ensure that their voters' interests are heard over well-financed influence peddlers.

An alternative would be to impose an ordinance that gives candidates the choice of either contribution limits or expenditure ceilings. I prefer limits because the ceiling could be set too high, and therefore, the special interests could have more influence on policy decisions than the single voter.

As a resident, I object to the city using taxpayer dollars to pay for a candidate's statement through the petition-in-lieu process. This constitutes the city financially supporting candidates for a public office.

Financial support for candidates should come only from private sector funds. Candidates form committees to raise funds to support their candidacy; the city should not be in the business of spending money supporting candidates or ballot measures. The petition-in-lieu process burdens the city with not only the cost of the statements, but also approximately $5 for each signature to be verified by the Registrar of Voters office. This equals $1,250 per candidate, as 250 signatures are required to get a free pass on the statement cost.

Another improvement would be to either eliminate the practice of running for a seat number or divide the city into seven districts, with representation from each district. Simple logic says that the candidates who garner the most votes should be installed into office when candidates run at-large. Too many times, majority candidates are passed over by a candidate with a significant minority vote.

Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the public hearing on this matter on June 13, as my job usually requires me to work the second and fourth Tuesday evenings each month. I urge all of our voters to come out and support these reform measures to ensure that their majority vote puts the best qualified, not the most heavily funded, candidates into office.

Susan Kitchens is the city clerk for the city of Los Altos and a Sunnyvale resident.