Insurance Commissioner

Re “State Office Endorsements,” editorial, Oct. 22: You correctly note that incumbent Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush has accepted millions of dollars in campaign contributions from the insurance industry he is supposed to regulate. He has not benefited consumers in his pro-industry positions, has failed to make auto insurance more affordable and fostered the creation of higher-cost lower-benefit earthquake insurance. You fail to note he has yet to force implementation of voter-passed Prop. 103 outlawing redlining and has a backlog of over 5,000 consumer complaint cases yet to be investigated.

You then claim Assemblywoman Diane Martinez has not the experience (after six years of legislative duty as a noted consumer advocate and chairwoman of the powerful Utilities and Commerce Committee) nor the temperament for the position. You go on to indicate her proposals would likely wind up in court challenges. Of course they would! The insurance companies would fight her efforts on behalf of consumers tooth and nail. This is not a negative--it’s the most positive aspect of her commitment to the consumers of this state.

LARRY C. LaCROIX

Glendale

*

The insurance commissioner’s race is a perfect example of why we need campaign finance reform. The current commissioner, Quackenbush, has received millions of dollars from the insurance industry, so he can afford a high-profile campaign, and will most likely win. Whereas Martinez refuses to accept insurance industry donations, so she can barely afford to advertise. (Have you seen a Diane Martinez ad?) It’s a simple fact that unless a candidate “plays ball” with insurance lobbyists, he/she will be hopelessly outspent in the campaign.

California needs to follow the lead of several other states and outlaw insurance industry donations to the commissioner.

GINA GOLD

Los Angeles