To the Editor:

Re “In Bloomberg, Liberals See a Wallet Too Big to Offend” (front page, Feb. 16):

I remember the accusations circulating when John F. Kennedy ran for president that his father, Joseph P. Kennedy Sr., one of the richest men in America at the time, was going to buy the election for his son.

Kennedy embodied the notion that a person of great wealth could still have a social conscience — and, in fact, precisely because of his financial independence, might be more resistant to nefarious influences. His social conscience (and his choice of Lyndon Johnson as a running mate) led to some of the most important legislative advances of the 20th century in the areas of health care and equal rights.

Thus, I am mystified by your front-page article implying that Michael Bloomberg’s support for a remarkable range of liberal causes is largely a sham recently cooked up to get him elected president.

Ironically, Kennedy identified a more likely candidate for concern when he authorized a commission to look at the baleful influence of money on candidates for political office. His prescience about the negative influence of special interests worries me far more than Michael Bloomberg’s support for causes I care about.