The article, "California/Nevada CU Leagues Spike Dues to Cover Advocacy Ad Buy" in the November 24 issue described the leagues' new radio ad campaign as "a bold advertising approach to combat banker attacks". To me, it sounds like a continuation of the wrong war. Though there is certainly some potential benefit to a $6 million media buy which would promote the credit union difference, the purpose seems misguided. California/Nevada CU League CEO David Chatfield says that the public doesn't know the difference between credit unions and banks, and would be unlikely to support credit unions in a fight with the banks. Of course the public doesn't know the difference; nor do they care. The public only cares about who can give them the best deal on a loan or a deposit account, and whose service is most convenient. In my opinion, if the leagues would like to spend $6 million to benefit credit unions, the right war would be to fund a legal challenge to the practice of auto manufacturers bundling their financing with the auto sale which causes restraint of trade. The loss of a significant portion of our auto loan market share is a much bigger long-term threat to credit unions than whatever the banks might do to us, and deserves a lot more attention. To give up without a fight, as it seems that CUNA and the leagues have done, is to guarantee defeat. Rick Leas President/CEO Golden Bay Federal Credit Union Moffett Field, Calif.