Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Senator WILLIAMS. Human nature being what it is, that portion of the plan which would provide the method of financing the campaigns will be the easiest to get through the Congress. That is only natural. It is for that reason that some of us felt that it would be very important to have with this so-called sweetener, a revision of the Corrupt Practices Act that would require full and complete disclosure of all campaign contributions and expenditures accompany the same bill. Because if we are just going to provide an easier method of raising money, with no controls over the expenditures, I am fearful that we may fail to clean up this particular situation. I hope that we can work out an arrangement here where we can report a single package bill, whether it be a bill reported by this committee alone, or with your committee, so that when a Member of Congress is voting for a proposal that will make it easier to finance our campaigns, we will also be voting for the proposal which will give some greater element of control over the source of the funds and the expenditures.

I hope that you will give that consideration. I am not trying to usurp the jurisdiction of your committee. Whether the bill be reported out from this committee or your committee, that is beside the point. The main consideration should be that we get a bill before the Senate that will be of the proper form and that will give not only a method of financing these campaigns, whether through a tax credit or deduction or whatever you decide on, but also some badly needed corrections in the Corrupt Practices Act.

The CHAIRMAN. You may continue, Senator Williams.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I think I had just about com-pleted my remarks. I think I am pretty much in agreement with Senator Cannon that we do need some legislation in this area and that if we all get together and work for that one objective, I think we can get a bill out and passed at this time. I certainly hope that we can, as members of the two committees that may be involved, reach an agreement where we can report a single package bill. I happen to be one and I know there are many others who feel that it is important that we act on the reform phase of the Corrupt Practices Act. In fact, I would give even top priority to that over the method of helping to finance it, although I think they are related and I think they should be considered at the same time with the other.

I thank you.

i

The CHAIRMAN. May I just make this one point?

Senator Cannon, you are one of the highly regarded members of the Rules Committee, a very fine committee, and you do wonderful service to the Senate on that committee. My only objection to your committee is that you do not have enough office space to assign. We have not been able to get enough room for this committee. We hope someday we can get together and build a new wing on this building so we can provide more room for our stenographers and our assistants. But it is my judgment that my committee should not invade the jurisdiction of your committee unless it is with an understanding between us that the Committee on Rules would think that that was appropriate and would approve of it, or would not object. If the Committee on Rules sought to invade the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee and sought to pass a tax measure, I know what would happen to you.

Senator CANNON. It already did, Mr. Chairman. ༔ ༔

The CHAIRMAN. If you succeed in passing such a bill to the Senate, the House would send you a little blue slip saying that in the judgment of the House, that was a revenue bill and revenue bills must originate in the House and they can send the bill back to you. We have had it happen quite a few times.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

I must say that is one very satisfying experience as far as the Finance Committee is concerned, to stand there and defend your jurisdiction, and if you lose, have the House send the bill back with a little blue slip.

The House committee does not have that protection, but it has, of course, the privilege of originating revenue measures. But I would say as far as your committee work is in respect to that matter, we should respect its jurisdiction if they want to work on it.

But I also want to say that a bill that we report might be controversial and if it were, assuming that we could muster 53 or 54 votes for it, we might lose the necessary votes to pass the bill, because southerners might object to the Corrupt Practices Act applying to southern primaries or someone might disagree with something in the bill that your committee reports. It seems to me you might have a situation where your bill could muster 53 or 54 votes in its own right and our bill could muster that many votes, but putting the two bills together in one package might cause them both to fail.:

Senator CANNON. Senator, you are absolutely right. This is one of the things we had to consider when we previously reported our bill to the Senate, because we left out a lot of measures that were extremely controversial in the hope that we could get something through and we ended up getting nothing through.

Senator WILLIAMS. Perhaps you compromised so far that you lost your virtue. I supported you and I think if you stand pat on the things you feel are necessary, it will pass. We are operating at a little different area at this particular time, because the Senate instructed the Finance Committee to report out a measure and based on those instructions, which I think were passed 93 to four or almost unanimously by the Senate, our instructions were to report out a bill revising the Corrupt Practices Act in all of these areas. I feel that we are somewhat bound in that particular field and there are more precedents that the Finance Committee and other committees are not overly sensitive about jurisdiction on.

As a specific example in point, I am reminded of the fact that we amended the antitrust laws dealing with football leagues on a Finance Committee bill and Congressman Celler's objections in the House were overriden.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The CHAIRMAN! But that was a tax bill, that was a revenue bill. Merging those two leagues was just incidental. das d Senator WILLIAMS. That is right.us dog 3

Then another point about the revision of the Corrupt Practices Act. That is not controversial, apparently, because if it was adopted in the Senate without a single objection as an amendment; it was lost by the wayside in parliamentary maneuvering

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The CHAIRMAN. You say that was adopted without any controversy. I was there when it happened. The Senator from Delaware, Mr. Williams, had an amendment at the desk, for which a substitute had been offered. So at that point, nobody could offer an amendment or vote on one until we disposed of the amendment and the substi

m

B

t

tute. The Senator then stood there and said, I now modify my amendment. I asked the Parliamentarian, do we get a chance to vote on that? He said, no, there is no way on earth you can vote on it. He has a right to modify it. There is no way to vote on it until you dispose of these two, the substitute and the perfecting amendments.

I never knew that could happen, that somebody could stand there and modify his amendment, and nobody could do anything about it. It was done by unanimous consent of one man, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Williams. If we did not like it, there was nothing we could do about it.

Senator WILLIAMS. I say it was adopted later. After we got through with the parliamentary maneuvering, on a roll call vote, the Senate approved it.

The CHAIRMAN. They approved it with a whole bunch of other things.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Senator WILLIAMS. That is right. But I say we need this and I say very strongly we do need a correction of the Corrupt Practices Act and full disclosure. As President Kennedy and President Johnson said about that amendment, as well as many others, I have a strong suspicion the Senate is going to get a chance to vote on it, too.'

The CHAIRMAN. I am not objecting to it. I am merely saying that as far as this chairman is concerned, I do respect the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee. If the Rules Committee wants to amend this bill, I recognize its jurisdiction to do that. 5/

I recognize the Senator from Indiana, Senator Hartke.
Senator HARTKE. I have no questions.

The CHAIRMAN. The Senator from Oklahoma?
Senator HARRIS. I have no questions.

[ocr errors]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Cannon."

I want to interrupt the Senator for just a moment. Some Senators will have to leave in just a few moments to go on with other business. While we have the present membership here, we wanted to present a plaque to our next witness. I would like to call him up here, one of the most beloved members who ever served here, the Honorable Paul A. Douglas, of Illinois, and a longtime member of the Committee on Finance. Recollection of the distinguished service he has rendered for this committee is strong within us. (Applause.]

[ocr errors]

Mr. DOUGLAS. Your Honor, my plea is "not guilty."

The CHAIRMAN. The first order of business of this committee in the 90th session was to adopt the following resolution:

Whereas Paul H. Douglas, of Illinois, served honorably and faithfully as a member of the Committee on Finance from May 18, 1956, to January 3, 1967, and whereas, Paul H. Douglas generously devoted his knowledge and energy to the consideration of the many complex issues before this committee during this period, and

Whereas Paul H. Douglas unceasingly advanced the development of legislation relating to trade, Government finance, and social welfare in execution of the broad responsibilities of his committee: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Committee on Finance hereby expresses to Paul H. Douglas its sincere appreciation and gratitude for his outstanding contributions to the fulfillment of the obligations of this committee and for his faithful and devoted service as a member of this committee.

[ocr errors]

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Douglas, this is one of the few measures involving you that was adopted unanimously. [Applause.]

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am very grateful for this and also very much surprised, but pleasantly surprised, I may say.

"

Thank you very much. You should not be so kind to me as sometime I may appear before you on the depletion allowance.

The CHAIRMAN. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear the statement of Senator Douglas.

Senator Douglas, I am pleased to have here a book that you wrote in this general area, ethics in Government. You discuss this general problem, the cost of running for the Senate, and the fact that the Corrupt Practices Act is a farce the way it works today. You have given a lot of thought to these subjects and you have done what you could to make, Government more ethical and to clean it up to the greatest possible extent.

If I might recall a personal incident, when Senator Douglas was a candidate for office, I found a man I thought would contribute to the Senator's campaign. The man said he agreed he ought to contribute. He agreed Senator Douglas had been a fine Senator, but he read Senator Douglas' last essay on ethics and the Senator had such high ethics, he was afraid to talk to him. But he finally did come through

anyway.

Senator Douglas was chairman of the first Senate Committee on Ethics back in the 81st Congress. His service on that committee and his own experience with political campaigns prompted him to introduce legislation many years ago to finance election costs with Federal appropriations.

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL H. DOUGLAS, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ACCOMPANIED BY STANLEY HECKMAN

Mr. DOUGLAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Finance Committee, friends, and former colleagues, I am honored to be invited by the chairman to testify on the questions of the financing of candidates for election to Federal office. Someone once remarked that running for office was like sex; it had to be experienced in order to be understood. Running for public office is therefore a subject about which all Senators and Congressmen and especially those from two-party States are indeed very knowledgeable.

[ocr errors]

May I say to begin with that I support the main thrust of the administration's bill. I also support the general proposals of your chairman, Senator Long-in the previous Congress a sponsor of his bill, a cosponsor-and of Senator Metcalf.

The basic fact is that modern elections cost enormous sums of money, especially in two-party States. It so happens that I have been engaged in five statewide campaigns in what is now the fourth largest State in the Union; namely, one unsuccessful primary campaign and four general elections, three of which were successful, and the last of which was, as you know, decidedly unsuccessful. In addition, my wife ran twice for Congressman-at-large, winning one election and losing the other. So while not pretending to be an expert on these matters, I think I can qualify as having had a certain amount of experience during the last quarter of a century.

All of you gentlemen have had experiences somewhat similar to mine, and many of you, of course, far exceed me in your practical knowledge.

But there are two powerful restraints which largely prevent those in active political life from revealing the great need of money to meet necessary and proper election expenses and the ethical and economic problems connected with raising these sums. First, a large section of the public still regards political activity, political expenditures and political giving as somewhat disreputable. Of course, all this is nonsense and rather vicious nonsense at that. We are proud of our system of democratic government with the right of voters to choose between parties and candidates. But obviously this is impossible without elections, and these necessarily invoke and necessitate the discussions and arguing of issues, the presentation of candidates, and the getting out of the vote. These cost money. Without its expenditure democratic government would be impossible. Therefore, if there is no open or tacit bribing, no misrepresentation of facts, and if a general level of gentlemanly behavior is observed, the expenditure of money in elections is a civic function. But active politicians are reluctant to speak out lest they be smeared for engaging in the necessary activities of political campaigning. And if their rivals and opponents keep silent and refuse to tell the real facts, the man who does so puts himself at a competitive disadvantage.

Consequently, the politicians who could help most tend to remain silent. This is comparable to the way our grandmothers perpetuated the myth that babies were brought from the great unknown by storks who deposited them in swaddling clothes under the rose bushes. This led to unhealthy imaginings, just as the present lack of information has perpetuated false ideas and emotions amongst many unthinking citizens.

And yet it is a disadvantage for any one participant to break the silence.

*『་

The second set of barriers to frank talk are the unrealistic limits which Congress and some State legislatures have tried to set on the total sums which can be legally expended, with certain exceptions. These ceilings have been fixed at $5,000 for congressional elections, $25,000 for senatorial and $3 million for presidential. In view of modern costs for radio and television, billboards, printing, postage, traveling, and so forth, and the necessary salaries for personnel, these are impossible restrictions. Except in small one-party States, and then only for already well-known and highly esteemed incumbents, no effective campaign can be waged for these sums, and virtually none is The candidates are then forced to seek loopholes in the law.

[ocr errors]

These were first discovered, I believe, in 1940 by the managers of Wendell Willkie. They set up a number of separate committees of which the candidate professed ignorance. Each one of these committees successfully contended that it was independent and that, at most, the limit would apply to each one taken separately, but not to the galaxy of Willkie committees as a whole. In this way several times the supposed limit was successfully and legally spent. I think every subsequent presidential candidate has been compelled to use similar devices.

This same method of necessary evasion has been carried over into senatorial and congressional campaigns. I remember the testimony

[ocr errors]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »