Reform in both the regulation and financing of political campaigns has long been sought, and the President's recommendations must be regarded as a comprehensive and, on the whole, workable approach to solution of widely recognized problems in this area.

Some preliminary comments on the recommended reforms would include the following:

1. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDS

The President has recommended direct Congressional appropriations, in lieu of individual tax check-offs, and has proposed that private contributions for major parties may not be used for expense items (radio and television, newspaper and periodical advertising, travel, prepartion and distribution of campaign literature) underwritten by public funds, the ultimate goal being "to finance the total expense (of campaign finance) . . . with public funds and to prohibit the use or acceptance of money from private sources." Since complete subsidization of election campaigns would be a far-reaching change in the American political process, the steps leading to it deserve close scrutiny.

a. Advantage of Tax Check-Off.-The President recommends direct Congressional appropriations because Congress would thus be enabled to make a realistic assessment of the amount needed, thereby freeing the fund from "uncertain reliance on tax check-offs." But this appears to overlook the positive value of voluntary, private action which is inherent in a check-off system. Widespread individual participation in campaign finance should be encouraged, notwithstanding the existence of a campaign fund, lest voters adopt a passive attitude which could carry over into unsubsidized non-Presidential campaigns. Indeed, the Canadian Committee on Election Expenses, in promulgating recommendations on election finance which include proposal of subsidies, specifically provided that "(n)o restrictions as to size or source of political contributions be initiated, and all individuals, corporations, trade unions, and organizations be encouraged to support the political party of their choice. Any legislation giving effect to the foregoing recommendations should clearly protect the right of donating to parties. . . .” Report of the Committee on Election Expenses (1966), p. 48.

The check-off requires individual voluntary action and for that reason should not be abandoned.

The potential disadvantage of its producing a varying amount for the fund from election to election could be overcome by authorizing Congress to appropriate additional funds, if necessary, to meet the deficit between tax check-off proceeds and a previously determined minimum amount.

b. Disadvantage of Separating Private and Public Contributions.—A principal feature of the President's recommendations is that private contribuitions for major parties may not be used for those items of expense to which public funds could be applied.

The benefit of this proposal seems problematical.

Political broadcasting, which would be an interdicted use for private funds, absorbs a disproportionately large amount of campaign expenditure. (In 1964, political broadcast costs constituted 18% of all political spending and amounted to almost $35 million). Since this percentage seems likely to increase in future elections, private as well as public funds should be applicable to it (and, probably, to the other expense items to be defrayed by public funds).

In addition, separation of public and private expense items could create problems of earmarking and tracing funds from each source and might also raise questions of interpretation-thus, administrative expenses, to which private funds could be applied, might include salaries of staffers who prepared campaign literature or advertising, to which such funds could not be applied. Separation of funds would thus render the Comptroller General's auditing function considerably more difficult.

c. Minor Parties and Reimbursement. The proposed legislation contemplates that major parties would be reimbursed during the campaign itself. A minor party would be reimbursed only after the election, and then only if it had received at least 5% of the total vote, a percentage which has not been achieved by a minor party in the United States since 1924.

This places minority parties at a substantial disadvantage. One method of dealing with this problem would be to redefine minority party more realistically, i.e., as one receiving between, say 2% and 25% of the total vote, and to authorize the Comptroller General to make payments, during the campaign, from the fund to those minority parties which, on the basis of a government-sponsored survey,

seemed likely to receive 2% or more of the total vote. Payments made to parties which did not actually achieve the indicated minimum percentage would be subject to full or ratable reimbursement. Since the survey to determine probable minority party vote-getting performance would be undertaken by the government itself, the opportunity for raids on the campaign fund by frivolous minority parties would seem quite small.

2. BROADCASTING QUESTIONS

a. Spot Announcements v. Programs.—Typically, most political broadcast charges are for spot announcements and do not involve program time. In 1964, 73% of TV stations' charges were for spots, and radio stations' spot charges represented an even higher percentage, although network charges reduced the overall proportion to perhaps 60%.

While they are favored by candidates, spot announcements do not edify: complex issues cannot be reduced to brief slogans or simple themes. Subsidization of presidential campaign broadcast expenses could help redress the imbalance between spot announcements and programs by underwriting only a portion of the cost of the former, while at the same time absorbing the entire cost of program expense. This might do something to improve the quality of public debate. b. Section 315 of the Federal Communications Act.-Under this section, radio and television stations allowing free or paid time to a candidate for public office must afford other candidates for the same office an equal opportunity to receive free or to buy the same amount of time. Section 315 applies to candidates of different parties for any office, federal or not, and it applies to candidates of the same party for nomination to any public office.

Under the minor party reimbursement limitations proposed by the President, many third party presidential candidates of recent years would not be entitled to recover broadcast costs. Yet, under the equal opportunity doctrine of Section 315, broadcasters would be obliged merely to offer such candidates paid time, since the major parties would be paying for their time, albeit from public funds. This would have the effect of discouraging broadcasts by minor party candidates. Some observers might count this a net gain, in view of the many frivolous third party candidates who appear in a presidential election. Still, the impact of subsidies on Section 315 requirements should be carefully reviewed, with particular regard to the relation between free and paid time.

Since minority parties will seldom be able to purchase equal paid time, some consideration might be given to deeming time paid for by majority parties from the fund as free time for purposes of Section 315, entitling minority parties to, say, 10 or 15% as much free time. Such a policy would permit "differential equality of access" under Section 315-an aproach suggested by several commentators. See, e.g., Alexander, "The High Costs of TV Campaigns," Television Quarterly, Winter, 1966, p. 55.

c. Incentives for Free Time.-Finally, the existence of a campaign fund should not foreclose creation of incentives to broadcasters to program free political time, One such would involve amendment of the Internal Revenue Code to permit broadcasters to deduct not only out-of-pocket costs of free broadcasts but also at least a portion of the lost revenue.

3. LIMITATION ON ALLOCATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS BY STATE

It should be made clear, in regulations to be issued by the Comptroller General, that the 140% limitation on federal funds which may be spent in any one state excludes funds spent for national advertising or network broadcasting, even though the actual expenditure is made in one state, such as New York. A workable distinction must be made between national and state purposes if the limitation is not to be arbitrary.

4. CONCLUSION

Total reliance on public funds to finance elections suggested as an ultimate goal may have a negative effect on the political process. In my opinion, it is critically important that private participation, through tax and other incentives, be actively encouraged as a continuing, healthy and at least co-equal means of supporting the cost of elections. If the Canadian experience is any guide, subsidies need not entail elimination of traditional private sources of finance.

79-540-67-20

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness will be Mrs. Omer L. Hirst of Burke, Va.

Mrs. Hirst, we are very happy to have you here today. You have been most consistent as an attender of our committee sessions, and I appreciate your attendance, and I regret we were not in a position to hear your testimony prior to this time.

STATEMENT OF MRS. OMER L. HIRST, BURKE, VA.

Mrs. HIRST. Well, I appreciate very much what you are trying to do here in focusing attention on what I consider a very challenging problem in campaign finance. I feel under your wise and sagacious leadership that discussion and consideration will lead to action that will greatly improve the situation.

I am Ann Hirst, a citizen, voter, campaigner, and the wife of an elected official. I have on occasion tried to persuade qualified people to run for elective office. I have no wish for votes or credit or money personally, but I would like a new approach to campaigning for public office.

The need for expenditure of large sums of money threatens to restrict elective office to the few who can afford it and to those sponsored by special interests. This often prevents the wise and talented who are not affluent from seeking office. I would like to suggest a plan. Many of these things I have heard in the last few days.

1. Limit the length of the campaign to from 3 to 6 weeks, and the purpose of this would be to intensify interest, provide a period for the discussion of pertinent issues, eliminate the burden on the candidate of developing and sustaining public interest for too long a time. 2. Provide time and space in all news media at Government expense, which would be divided equally among the candidates.

The space would be prominent and in the same location in all newspapers. It would not take the place of news reports or editorials. Letters to the editors would provide for voter response.

The candidates would share equally the time on radio and television immediately following news and weather reports. All stations would share equally the time on radio and television immediately following news and weather reports. All stations would have the same obligation to furnish this service. A question-and-answer period would provide for voter response.

Purpose: To inform and educate the public and to clarify the issues the candidate considers important; be a convenience to the voters; restore elective office to its proper place of dignity in the democratic

process.

3. Obligate the candidate to completely fill his space and time and to pledge that the statements have his sanction and approval.

Purpose: Give the electorate an opportunity to see, hear, and evaluate a candidate without the confusion of commercial advertising presentation; reveal the depth of the man.

4. And this I feel is the heart of my plan-would be to make it illegal for a candidate, committee, or person to spend money on commercial advertising.

Purpose: Eliminate the "for sale" sign suggested in the razzle-dazzle of the commercial approach, which obscures the real person with the

image, the real issues with phonieness; restore respect and dignity to the campaign process by giving the candidate the opportunity to perform a public service as he explains the issues as he understands them.

5. Set up a campaign fund to buy time and space from all the news media, to be divided equally among the candidates; money could be appropriated from general tax funds or from a special levy, depending on the projected cost of the service, our overall tax policies, and our traditional objections to fees for "poll taxes."

6. Provide that to qualify for participation a candidate must file a petition of support; the number of signatures should be an impressive percentage of the qualified voters participating in the last election for this office; pay a filing fee and sign a statement testifying to his understanding of the statutory responsibilities of the office he seeks; pledge to confine his published statements to issues related to the office.

Purpose: To insure that neither casual nor capricious candidates participate in the program.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mrs. Hirst.

Is your proposal directed at the presidential campaign, or is it directed at all campaigns?

Mrs. HIRST. I would hold it now to the Federal offices. But I have also thought of it in terms of local and State offices.

The CHAIRMAN. You would propose to start it with Federal offices and see how it works with that first and then see how it works on others?

Mrs. HIRST. Right.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, would you provide this same opportunity to third-party candidates as well as major-party candidates?

Mrs. HIRST. Yes, sir. But, you see, the importance, the crux, of this plan, is that I would like to substitute people for money, and the crux of this is in the qualifying. You must have a substantial endorsement by qualified voters in order to run in the first place, to have at your disposal access to the news media.

One other thing I do not have in here but I think we should consider when we are considering the overall problem, is the popular vote for President, instead of going through all the other processes to nominate and then elect a President, for instance.

The CHAIRMAN. Well now, would you apply this to congressional candidates?

Mrs. HIRST. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What figure would occur to you as the number of signatures a person would need in order to qualify on an equal-time basis with his opponent?

Mrs. HIRST. I would not hold to this because I have not-I am not figure minded, but I think 10 percent, just off the top of my head, would be reasonable, and I am thinking about someone running from the whole country, for instance, some ratio, three-fourths of the States; then when you got into the State, maybe one-half, and then down to maybe one-fourth and reducing it down to 10 percent in the lowest jurisdiction

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mrs. HIRST (continuing). But qualifying for this plan the aim is to take the money out of it for the commercial approach. I would chal

lenge almost anyone to tell me the difference between one cigarette and another in advertisements or the things that are advertised a whole lot. You lose, what makes the difference, and I think people in public life, the best people in our country offer themselves for service in the government, and this should be an educational process for the electorate. This should teach us something.

The CHAIRMAN. For your information, I have read a lot, at least I saw a lot on television and heard it in radio, urging that people should take the blindfold test with regard to their cigarette, that that would tell them which cigarette was the mildest, which had the better taste. So we had a maid in our home who was just convinced that the brand of cigarette she had was the finest. It was the best and nothing else would do. So I asked her to take the blindfold test, and I gave her about six different cigarettes. She could not tell one from the other even though she was personally convinced that the one she was smoking was the only cigarette to smoke.

The thing that amused me was that the brand which she had been smoking, when she tasted it, caused her to say "That one bit my throat. That is not the one I want."

As a practical matter, that was the one she had been smoking all the time. So that a lot of this advertising is advertising that is really a distinction without a difference.

We spend a great deal of our money paying to see people advertise the difference between products that does not exist at all.

I regret to say that all too often that is what we are doing with our broadcasting of political issues. Many times both candidates are talking about things that are not the real issues, are not the real difference between the two at all.

Mrs. HIRST. One of the highest callings a man can have is to serve his government, and I think we greatly dishonor it in our campaign system. It is very difficult to get a good man to run and to subject himself to some of the things that one must do. He must have an unlimited amount of physical energy aside from mental capacity.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, one should not be able to buy the election, be it the Presidency or a seat in the Senate, a seat in the House of Representatives, the Governor's chair, or any position of that sort, and the sooner we get it on the basis that neither one person nor any 100 or 1,000 can achieve that with their money-but that the people decide it for themselves, based on a fair presentation of issues-the better off we are going to be.

Thank you very much for your contribution.

Mrs. HIRST. Thank you for having me here.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee stands adjourned until 10 a.m.,. tomorrow.

(Whereupon, at 2:45 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, June 7, 1967.)