Question 2 Dissent Illogical

To the editors:

The dissent on the "Vote Yes on Question 2" editorial (Opinion, Nov. 2) by Melissa R. Langsam and Noah D. Oppenheim makes little sense. Their first objection to Question 2 is that it does not prevent individuals from personally financing their campaigns.

I'm sure that most Question 2 proponents would want to do this, but courts have ruled that such restrictions are unconstitutional, whereas reasonable voluntary restrictions on campaign spending in exchange for public funding have been ruled constitutional. Short of a constitutional amendment or a reversal of court rulings, the best way to prevent candidates from financing their own campaigns is to set public funding levels high enough so that doing so is unrealistic for all but the super-wealthy.

Their second objection, that equity in spending would enhance the advantages of incumbency, also makes no sense given that incumbents outspend their challengers in the vast majority of elections.

Equalization of spending would benefit challengers more than the well-funded incumbents. Their third objection is also unreasonable. Allowing extremists to air their views can only stimulate debate on why those views may be wrong. Anyone who cares about getting corrupting money out of politics and replacing it with clean public money will vote yes on Question 2. MICHAEL J. PASSANTE '99   Nov. 2, 1998 The writer is president of the Harvard-Radcliffe College Democrats.