$5,000. Why can't he make his campaign on the $5,000 that that man put up. Why ask them for a buck.

In the second place, the people who would put up the small contributions, generally speaking, have a need for that money. They do not know how they are going to meet the next month's bills and they are, therefore, somewhat reluctant to contribute.

If we are going to use the tax approach it should be a tax credit, and it should be for an even smaller amount than $20.

For example, if we are going to use the tax credit approach, why not give an 80 percent credit on a $1 contribution so as to generate the maximum number of contributions and spread it just as broadly as possible among those.

Well, any other questions?

Senator Gore.

Senator GORE. I would like to observe that this same theory, Senator Long, that you cite, that it is hard to persuade a man to give a dollar because he feels like his dollar will not amount to much, the same principle applies, as long as we believe our elections are financed by 1 percent of the American people, to the average fellow saying "Why do I go and vote? The few are dictating the elections anyway". So I want to be really democratic. Let every man have one vote, and then I believe we will have a far larger turnout.

Senator KENNEDY. Can I add to that also, if I may.

You talk about the fact that individuals think "Why should I give a dollar or why should I vote?" The fact is that 70 million Americans do go out and vote. Maybe there should be 30 million more who should go and vote as well, but 70 million voters do vote, and I think if they also felt and understood if they could contribute to a political campaign, then that, in turn, would make a difference, and whether it is a dollar or $2 or $5, it makes a tremendous difference for the candidate of their choice. They would feel closer to their candidate and closer to the political party. I think it is very important.

Senator GORE. Well, 70 million is a good turnout until you compare it with the 200 million people.

Senator KENNEDY. Yes.

Senator GORE. We ought to have not 30 million additional; we ought to have another 50 million people voting.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, my original proposal which I submitted to the committee more than a year ago, was that every American, when he went out and voted, that automatically made a contribution of $1. The fact that he voted when he pulled the lever for John Kennedy for President, $1 right there, one man, one vote, $1. So thatSenator GORE. You mean he gets paid?

The CHAIRMAN. The candidate would be entitled to $1 to use in making his campaign when somebody voted for him. That is the way I started out.

Then Senator Douglas suggested that we modify it to provide the same amount for both parties so that they would have an equal opportunity to present their case. I now find myself, having completed the entire trip around the merry-go-round, having come back to where I started out; but that is one more way one can approach it.

There are a lot of ways we can do it. I hope we are able, however, sooner or later in the spirit of give and take, agree upon something that we can all support.

I am willing to forego some of my views if others will do the same, and try to arrive at something we can all agree upon that will be good for the country.

Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy.

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. We are also fortunate to have with us the Honorable Jim Wright, Representative from the 12th District of Texas. Congressman Wright is the author of a very informative-type article entitled "Clean Money for Congress," which appeared in April 1967, edition of Harper's magazine.

This article reflects the keen insight Congressman Wright has regarding the matter before the committee. I know we will all benefit from what he has to say to us on this occasion.

very

Congressman Wright, I will instruct the clerk to print this fine article that you wrote on this subject at the close of your testimony. (See p. 278.) We are very happy to have you with us here today. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES C. WRIGHT, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 12TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, you are very kind to invite me over to share my thoughts with the committee. The hour is late, and I shall be brief.

If you would permit me, I would also like for my statement to appear in full.

The CHAIRMAN. I will do that. But I want to assure you that I will read with interest every word you have.

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. The very fine record you made and the uphill campaign you conducted in your election to the Congress in the first instance and the very fine record you made in the House of Representatives are an inspiration to all good people.

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, you are more than kind.

It occurs to me that some people might be wondering if it is not strangely irrelevant and even inconsequential that we should be sitting here today, talking about the future of American political campaigns, while the Middle East is in flames.

I should like to suggest that nothing could be more relevant or more consequential to the maintenance of American political institutions and American free processes than this. Consequently, nothing could be more important to the preservation of freedom in the world. Therefore, I think it is very important.

Since my particular experience is confined to attempts to finance congressional and, in one case, Senate campaigns, permit me, if you will, to limit my suggestions to that realm rather than attempting to advise with respect to presidential campaign matters.

I would like to discuss five or, perhaps, six general areas into which various recommendations have been brought to this committee. All have been excellent.

First, let me touch briefly on the recommendation made by the President for a complete and binding disclosure of all gifts and expendi

tures.

It is the recommendation of the President that all contributions and all expenditures of $100 or more should be reported whether given to or spent by the candidate himself or any committee acting in behalf of the candidate for Federal office.

I think this is an important requirement.

Obviously it is evaded today under the patently absurd theory that the candidate himself does not know what is done by the so-called voluntary committees, and like Pontius Pilate simply washes his hands of the whole sordid mess.

This makes us, I believe, something of a laughing stock to the public. The public realizes these antiquated laws are not truly observed, and I think it lessens public respect for our institutions. Therefore, I think we should enact that provision.

Secondly, the President has recommended that there be a disclosure of all sources of income for members of the House and Senate. That recommendation came in last year's presidential package, and I am not certain whether or not he repeated it this year. I see nothing wrong

with it. I think it should be done.

Why, you may ask, should a public official be asked to hang his public finances out on the public wash line like so many garments? I think the answer is that we knew this was a gold fish bowl when we entered it. If any of us have any financial connections of which our own constituents are unaware, and if we have some of which we are ashamed, we should not have them.

If any of us have financial connections that would be truly hazardous to our continuance in public office, perhaps we should not be continued in public office. Therefore, I think that is an important provision.

A third area lies in the field of limiting the amount that any one individual might give. I am not prepared to enter into discussion with you of the constitutionality of such a limitation. That has been discussed among the Senators.

I should simply like to point out that a limitation does exist in the present law, permitting only $5,000 to be given to a candidate. I believe the spirit of the law is being evaded.

The President described the practice of making multiple $5,000 contributions to various committees organized for a given candidate as analogous to putting the maximum contribution into several pockets of the same suit.

I think the $5,000 surely ought to be enough. If it were to be changed, I think perhaps in the interest of healthy democracy and maximum participation by all people, it ought to be cut from $5,000 to a lower figure.

In the fourth place, the recommendation has been made that we change the presently meaningless limitation of the Corrupt Practices Act of 1924 and the amount of money that individuals might spend in campaigns.

All of us know it is meaningless. All of us evade it at will. It is a common laughing stock.

As it now stands the law, of course, provides that no more than $5,000 can be spent in a campaign for the House, and no more than $25,000 in a campaign for the Senate.

If I were to pretend to you that I had abided by that law, you would know I was a hypocrite. I think the same might apply to 95 percent, if not indeed all, of our colleagues.

One of my fellow members of the House reported following the 1964 election that he had expended $193,000. I admire his candor and his honesty; I think this is to be commended.

But how does that make those of us in the Congress look and what does it do to encourage law obedience among the citizenry?

I think, perhaps, we might forgive the average citizen for disobeying a commonly ignored ordinance. But what excuse is there for those of use whose very profession it is to make the law and to make it mean something if, indeed, we want it to mean something?

I think by refusing either to abide by the law or to change it we present a pretty sad spectacle to the public.

Now, I happen to disagree with the President's proposal to lift the meaningless limit and impose nothing in its stead. I believe there should be some limit on the amount expended in congressional and Senate races. I am not certain that I know precisely what it should be, or that I am capable of devising a formula that would be fair and applicable in all cases. However, I introduced a bill in the House last year, and again this year, which would impose a limit of $30,000 for a primary race for the House, and an additional $30,000 for a general election campaign for the House. This, coincidentally enough, adds up to the sum that the congressional candidate, if elected, would receive in salary for his 2-year term-$60,000.

For the Senate, of course, no single figure could apply with fairness to all States, because they vary so much in population.

My bill would use the $30,000 as a factor and multiply it by the number of House seats in a given State. In States like New Hampshire and New Mexico, with two House Members, the maximum would be $60,000 for a senatorial campaign for the primary, and an additional $60,000 for the general election.

In a State like Texas, with 23 House Members, $690,000 would be allowed for each of these campaigns. In New York and California the sum would come to a little over a million dollars.

This, I believe, should be adequate for a sufficient campaign of public enlightenment. Perhaps these figures would not be enough for a lavish campaign or brainwashing, ad infinitum and ad nauseum, but something should be attempted.

The important thing with which this committee has been wrestling, and, I think the key to the workability of election reform is what you have been discussing this morning. I favor a tax credit of, let us say, up to a modest figure of $20 or $25. I think this is preferable to tax deduction of up to $500.

I agree with the chairman that there is really no need to encourage those of great means to expand the amounts that they already give to political campaigns. But I think there is truly a very great need to broaden the base and make it popular and attractive for the average citizen with no ax to grind except good government to participate actively and feel that he has a personal stake in his Senator or his Congressman.

I think it would be a great thing if a person were allowed to contribute up to $25 to the candidate or the party of his choice and to be able to deduct this as a tax credit.

If it should be argued that this would become a great burden upon the Treasury, then that presupposes that it would be a great success, and it would encourage a great many people through the country to participate.

"

I think this would reduce the sometimes disgraceful reliance upon the big contributors.

The only one other area that I think might be worthy of my attempting to comment upon is the suggestion that television stations should be required to give a certain amount of prime time to candidates for the Senate and the House.

I favor this requirement. I think inherent in the licensing process is the assumption that a television station or radio broadcasting station is going to devote a certain amount of its prime time to public service. How better by definition could we isolate or dignify public service than by allowing the public to know the public views of those who would be their public servants.

I think this would elevate and enhance the very quality of our elections. It would reduce the importance of spending vast sums of money on these little quickie commercials that shout a slogan at you or pop out with a singing jingle before you have a chance to turn them off. I think these are really juvenile, and I am inclined to believe that they have a tendency to talk down to the intelligence of the American public.

I would rather see intelligent discussions in some depth by candidates of both parties presented to an adult constituency in an adult way in, perhaps, 30-minute segments of prime time.

In all of this, Mr. Chairman, I think what you are undertaking to do is, possibly, as important a reform as has come about in American politics in our time. I think it is long overdue.

We have a chance to revitalize and revivify American democracy. Or simply by making a perfunctory attempt and letting the dust of long neglect settle back into all the accustomed corners, I am afraid we could confirm the suspicion held by much of the American public that we in Congress really are content with these gaping loopholes that make a mockery of our election laws, and that we do not really want reform in spite of all of our pious protests.

So I congratulate you and all the members of this committee for the interest they show here today.

I look forward anxiously to the product of your labors. I think it is in the mainstream of American history, because what we have done from the beginning has been systematically to broaden the electorate. We have stricken down the cruel protocols of a vested caste system. We adopted manhood suffrage under Jefferson's leadership. We moved on to let the women vote. In the last 2 years we have done away with the white man's primary, we have destroyed the maladjustment of a rotten borough system in districting; we have said one man, one vote. We have passed civil rights voting laws, so that everybody, in theory, gets an opportunity to vote.

But, Mr. Chairman, what good is all of that if, in reality, the costs of elections and the difficulties of raising campaign money from the little handful of the fat cats who hold in their hands the power and the keys to public office are so restrictive that the public does not have much choice among those for whom it gets to cast its votes? Therefore,

79-540-67- -18