H.J. RES. 16 Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to qualifications for election to the offices of President and Vice President of the United States Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States: "ARTICLE "SECTION 1. No person nominated as the candidate of a political party for election to the office of President or Vice President of the United States shall serve in such office for the term for which he was nominated if such person was nominated with respect to that election as the candidate of such political party for such office more than sixty days before the day established for the appointment of the electors of President and Vice President of the United States for that term. "SEC. 2. This article shall take effect at the beginning of the first calendar year which begins after the date of ratification of this article. "SEC. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission." Following is the text of H. R. 96: H.R. 96 A bill to establish certain qualification for election to the offices of President and Vice President of the United States Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no person nominated as the candidate of a political party for election to the office of President or Vice President of the United States shall serve in such office for the term for which he was nominated if such person was nominated with respect to that election as the candidate of such political party for such office more than sixty days before the day established for the appointment of the electors of President and Vice President of the United States for that term. U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., November 25, 1964. The Honorable JOHN S. MONAGAN, Washington, D.C. DEAR JOHN: Thanks so much for sending to me a copy of your bill to establish a Federal Presidential Election Board. I fully agree that we must think seriously about commonsense ways and means to limit the length of our presidential campaigns. Believe me, I know from experience. I know your interest in this problem will be of substantial importance in pursuing the kind of solution which is acceptable to our political parties and the people of the United States. Best wishes. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY. [From the Meriden (Conn.) Morning Record, Jan. 6, 1965] As Congress convened this week, Representative John Monagan, whose expanded Fifth District now includes Meriden, has introduced again a bill to limit presidential election campaigns to 60 days. This is not the first time Congressman Monagan has proposed such legislation, but if experience is of any value, his bill should attract greater support during this session. The 1964 election campaign is still fresh in the minds of the voters and of the candidates, and there is general recognition that a long drawn out campaign is no longer necessary. Time was in an earlier era when it was necessary to have a long campaign. Means of transportation were fewer and slower then. A candidate went from region to region by train, and it took longer to cover the country. There were no airplanes to enable him to speak in San Francisco and New York within a matter of hours, if necessary. There was no television to bring his image and his argument simultaneously into every home in the land. Now that these means of communication are available, the need for a long campaign no longer exists. Under present conditions, the protracted campaign is a disservice; it exhausts the strength of the candidates; it tries the patience of the voters, wearying them to the point of disenchantment with the democratic process; and it is needlessly expensive. In terms of time, money, conservation of energy, and political efficiency, the Nation would be well served if there were a limit imposed on the length of the presidential election campaign. Congressman Monagan's bill recognizes this need. Examination and debate may lead to some modification, but in essence his bill is sound and deserves to be approved. [From the Sacramento Bee, the Fresno Bee, the Modesto Bee, Jan. 5, 1964] TO ABSURD LENGTHS The clamor is mounting to shorten appreciably the extraordinary circus which occupies American life every 4 years-the presidential campaign. Old ways die hard, however, and few expect urged reforms will be resolved by 1968. Look at England. Its recent elections for Parliament produced campaigns lasting but 3 weeks and nothing important was left unsaid. The most recent Canadian election lasted but 30 days; there were no complaints from the voters that they could not make up their minds in this time. By contrast, the American presidential election campaign in 1964 began really in January with the primaries and drummed on, ad nauseum, through October. How is an officeseeker to fill that near vacuum responsibly and intelligently? There have been many suggestions for reform. Congressman John S. Monagan of Connecticut introduced legislation, which died aborning, to limit the presidential campaign, convention to election, to 60 days. U.S. Senator Thomas J. Dodd of Connecticut has suggested a 4-week campaign. There is no reason whatsoever to justify the tiring, grinding campaigns, now fantastically costly. They produce little heat, less light. There was a time perhaps when they were necessary, when candidates stumped by buggy and by train and when it took time to reach the people. In this age of instant communication, however, the long campaign has become an absurdity. To the EDITOR: [From the New York Times, Dec. 27, 1964] SHORTER CAMPAIGNS WANTED Every thoughtful American must share your editorial concern about the appalling cost of modern political campaigns. Croesus has a more effective claim upon high office than Pericles. The 30-day campaign limit as employed in other countries suggests one way to reduce costs. It makes sense financially and psychologically for a nation blanketed by communications media which are intensive. Even more to the point is the proposal that publicly licensed communications media ought to earn their franchise by providing free broadcast time to parties in rough proportion to voter registration. The published expense figures for the last election suggests that national chairmen would rejoice in such a proposal. I believe, furthermore, that such a scheme would provide bracing tonic for the body politic. LAWRENCEVILLE, N.J., December 15, 1964. BRUCE MCCLELLAN. [From the Bridgeport (Conn.) Post, Dec. 20, 1964] LAW TO LIMIT CAMPAIGN TIME (By Carey Cronan) Representative John S. Monagan's proposal that legislation be enacted to limit presidential campaigns to 60 days should meet with favor from most of the Nation if not from the majority of Congress. Representative Monagan has proposed such a limitation before but his pleas have not produced any legislation to ease the burden of running for national office. Whether he will secure effective support for the legislation to be offered next month is not certain but he will not be alone in endorsing such a restriction. Just now, when the campaign is of recent memory, there is no doubt that most citizens are weary of being harangued not only in person, but over the airwaves and through the press, magazines, pamphlets, posters, pictures. They are weary of the arguments pro and con, weary of the free-flowing phrases, the histrionic rebukes, the gaudy slogans, the innuendoes, the reckless claims, the inadequate explanations, the soul searching, the panoply of issues, the appeals to pressure groups and by pressure groups, the obvious moves for voter support, the tremendous physical efforts, the bands and the bunting, the parades and demonstrations, the noise of the crowds, and the calculated statements never ending. Democratic process: Of course there are some who say we should be thankful that the democratic process permits such freedom, such liberty to campaign and to be campaigned upon. That is correct but we can have too much of a good thing. The cost of campaigning is itself a major item for the candidates and the parties, not only at the presidential level but all the way down the line. The longer the campaign the greater the cost will be and even at the congressional level it is questionable that the average citizen could even attempt to run for office in most of the districts of this country. Suggestions that tax deductions for campaign contributions up to certain amounts, be passed into law have not gotten beyond the stage of academic discussion. There are more people contributing today but substantial parts of the burden are borne by a few who are able to dash off a check in several figures. Forever new: It is also difficult for a candidate who is heard and seen and recorded almost every waking hour to be forever new. He has to say the same thing over and over again and try to give it a twist that will deliver it up as a novel concoction fresh from his desire to be of public service. Television stars who have to come up with a new program weekly have found that in the long run they wear upon the public and inevitably wear out. There was a time when an actor, even with a small repertoire, could glean success from county to county because he made one night stands and his audience was limited. Today the camera's eye reduces him to mediocrity if he makes too many appearances. Humphrey's reply: Representative Monagan wrote to Vice President-elect Hubert H. Humphrey and the retiring Minnesota Senator replied: "I fully agree that we must think seriously about commonsense ways and means to limit the length of our presidential campaigns. Believe me, I know from experience. I know your interest in this problem will be of substantial importance in pursuing the kind of solution which is acceptable to our political parties and the people of the United States." Situation watched: Representative Monagan says he is watching the situation around the country to see whay support he may get from the hustings. He feels that the new Congress may be willing to consider such restricting legislation to save the wear and tear not only on the candidates and their parties but on the Nation as a whole. Anyone who can't say what he wants to say in 60 days would be a pretty poor standard bearer and the voter who isn't able to judge the field in that time should be in the minority. No matter what happens Representative Monagan will stir up comment that may eventually help to find the answer the majority are seeking. WATR RADIO-TV, Waterbury, Conn., December 4, 1964. Mr. Elman: Our Congressman, John S. Monagan, is out to get legislation passed that will limit presidential campaigns to 60 days. Mr. Monagan objects to long campaigns as being wasteful of money and time that "they exhaust the nervous and phsyical resources of the candidate" and bore the elector. WATR agrees with Congressman Monagan entirely. We would add that in these days of mass electronic media communications a campaign longer than 60) days is not necessary. If a candidate cannot get his story over to the electorate in 60 days he won't do it in 120 days either. The last election campaign would seem to prove the point. WATR congratulates John Monagan on another piece of forward looking legislation and hopes for its passage in Congress. [From the Washington Post, Nov. 14, 1964] FOR SHORTER CAMPAIGNS In all American history there has been no more propitious moment than the present to strike a blow for shorter campaigns. Almost everyone was weary of the recent presidential consent before it ended. Many were almost frantically closing their eyes, plugging their ears and avoiding their friends. There was a strong feeling that everything had been said some weeks before November 3 and that prolongation of the uneven contest merely invited vituperation and the throwing of verbal grenades. Now there is much talk of shortening the 1968 campaign, and Representative Monagan has indicated that he will introduce a bill designed to keep the cannonading within a 60-day period. Of course the two parties could accomplish the same result by agreeing to hold their conventions after Labor Day. That would allow 6 or 7 weeks of full-fledged campaigning, which is certainly ample. In these days of television, radio and many other means of mass communications there is simply no need for barnstorming of the type that every candidate used to think necessary. [From the Meriden (Conn.) Morning Record, Nov. 13, 1964] FOR A SHORTER CAMPAIGN When Congress convenes after the first of the year Representative John S. Monagan of Waterbury, whom Meriden voters helped to reelect last week, will introduce legislation to limit presidential election campaigns to 60 days. "There is no reason why our campaign cannot be carried on with dignity and brevity. Canada, Israel, and India do it, why can't we?" he asks. Actually, there's no reason why we can't-if we want to. There are good reasons for wanting it, too, and never a better time to press for the legislation than right now in the wake of one of the dreariest and most bitter presidential campaigns within memory. "Our American electoral circuses are ridiculous. They are wasteful in time and money; they exhaust the nervous and physical resources of the candidate. Above all, after the first informative period, they bore the elector, and thus fail to serve a purpose," says Representative Monagan. The Congressman is right. Most of his constituents will agree with him and they will hope that a reasonable restriction can be put upon compaigns in future. All that needs to be said can be said in 60 days or less, and there will be a great saving not only in nervous and physical energy, but in money as well. The voters, the nominees, the political parties, and the Nation itself will benefit by a shorter presidential campaign. [From the New Haven (Conn.) Register, Nov. 8, 1964] LONG ELECTION CAMPAIGNS COSTLY, WEAR DOWN CANDIDATES, SUPPORTERS (By James MacGregor Burns) WILLIAMSTOWN, MASS.-Most voters and probably all candidates ended up the campaign agreeing on one thing: Our election campiaigns last too long. The final 2 or 3 weeks of this fall's battles were a dreary anticlimax. The exhausted candidates said little that was new. Their speechwriters cranked out the same old charges and countercharges. Many campaigns deteriorated into mudslinging as the candidates gave in to their frayed nerves. Long campaigns are dull. After a few weeks people become bored by the tired old war cries. There is a natural limit to the extent that voters can focus their attention. Our campaigns are like plays with especially long fiftacts that no one knows quite how to bring to a close. Long campaigns are expensive. President Kennedy's Commission on Campaign Costs estimated that the total expenditures on behalf of all candidates for all public offices in the United States probably reached $165 million in 1960. Part of this cost is due to the sheer length of the campaigns. ENORMOUS TOLL Long campaigns are hard on the candidates. Both Barry Goldwater and William Miller felt that the presidential race had gone on too long. Senator Goldwater told a Delaware crowd that it would be good if "we could change this crazy system in this country whereby we have to campaign for months and months and months." The toll of endless intensive campaigning on men in their mature years-the toll of little sleep, constant pressure, sporadic voting, incessant clamor, worry, rush, irritations-must be enormous. And long campaigns are hard on the voters. Most of them make up their minds much earlier during the campaign. They do not need all this time to come to a verdict. What can be done? I have a simple proposal: Hold elections about 3 weeks earlier, around the middle of October. Zealous candidates would probably start their campaigns that much earlier, but there is a natural limit. August is not a good time to begin open campaigning because of the number of people on vacation. A mid-October election date would give candidates about 6 weeks for campaigning, which is more than ample. Party candidates could be chosen in primaries or conventions either during the summer or during the previous spring. BRITAIN DOES IT Six weeks may seem a short time compared to our present monthlong campaigns, but that period of time is enough to present the candidates and elucidate the issues. Britain conducts its national campaigns in a period of 3 or 4 weeks, and there are no complaints that the parties have been short of time to present their platforms and engage each other in debate. The shortness of the actual campaigns in Britain also compels the parties and politicians to engage in a moderate amount of yearround political activity and dispute which also would be beneficial in this country. A shorter presidential campaign would also help straighten out the awkward schedules that new Presidents now face. Under the present arrangement, the man who wins the Presidency does not enter the White House until January 20. This period of time was sensible in horse-and-buggy days, but today it subjects the Nation to a long interim period of confusion and delay while we wait for the lameduck President to fill out his term. Another difficulty with our present scheduling is that the lameduck President must deal with Congress during the first part of January while the new House and Senate are organizing and beginning to take up their business. The new President does not take office and begin proposing specific measures until several weeks after Congress has assembled. DECEMBER 1 INAUGURAL A mid-October election date could help on both these problems. Such a date would enable the President to be inaugurated as early as December 1. His inaugural talk could lay out the broad design of his administration; he could still have December to line up his Cabinet and other major appointments and prepare the specifics of his program. He would then be ready at the beginning of January to present his legislative program to the new Congress. Governors and other executive officials in the States might also benefit from such a schedule. The weather is a final argument for such a change. October 15 is a good time for ending electioneering across the tier of Northern States. After that time the weather turns colder, the days are much shorter (especially with the time change), and campaign color and excitement seem to decline. And considering the weather we have had at such inaugurals as John F. Kennedy's in January 1961, December 1 would seem a much more seasonable time for the big day in Washington. |