But, in my judgment, the system should also be applied to senatorial and congressional candidates as well as to those for the Presidency. These are the candidates who need money the most and whose needs pose some of the most troublesome questions.

Senator GORE. You are getting mighty close to endorsement of my bill, Senator.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Fine. It would not be the first time that we had been together nor will it be the last.

Let me say that I think I am aware of the fact that the dominant parties in one-party States and their incumbent Senators and Congressmen will not like to have this system finance their opponents. These minorities are at present almost hopelessly handicapped financially as well as in other aspects and the dominant parties would like to keep them so. But this is not good for the country. Every State should have a vigorous opposition party so that issues could be threshed out and parties and candidates kept on their toes. Providing grants for the candidates for the Senate and House would help to build up a two-party system.

On the question of third or minority parties, I am a general believer in the two-party system in giving greater national unity and reducing the danger of undue divisions in the public mind. Although I was once a supporter of proportional representation in a period when all parties and virtually all persons accepted the fundamental principles of political democracy, I am not now, because this would give to the enemies of democracy, which now exist on both left and right, the chance to get into the legislative chambers and use the instruments of democracy to tear down the system of democracy. I do not believe this is an incumbent duty of our democratic system to commit suicide. But, at times, two parties become musclebound, perhaps corrupt, not in touch with the issues. Here a third party can act as a galvanizing force. I would not want to close the door on third parties and would suggest that parties that polled x percent of the vote, say from 5 to 10 percent in the previous election, should have the same right for its candidates to be aided as those of the major parties.

Then I go on into the question of whether primaries should be financed or only general elections. In one-party States the primaries are more important than the general election. This is also sometimes true in two-party States so far as the Presidency is concerned. But, on the other hand, it would be a mistake to finance a multitude of candidates, most of whom would have no chance. There is no perfect solution. We have to choose the best solution available. Then the question comes, What should happen to private contributions?

In my earlier proposal I was much too restrictive in forbidding private contributions. I would permit them as supplementary to public financing but place limits on the amounts any one person could contribute and require the publicity of all contributions to all committees or organizations. I would set the maximum for any one Federal office at $500 and provide that these must be cleared through authorized sources, each of which should file a full statement of receipts, including dinners.

I do not pretend that the above suggestions are perfect, or that any one of the bills before you is ideal, but I do believe that they are decided improvements. It is important that something be done and

this year is a good one in which to do it. I wish to thank all the Senators for their honest efforts to improve the present situation.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Douglas, I want to thank you very much for what I think is the finest statement we have had on this subject during the entire hearing. I think it is the finest statement that we have had during the research we have made on this subject.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I hope none of you will experience this, but this is one of the releasing factors of political defeat.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, I know you have a plane you must catch. I have told our staff to cooperate in urging that the airline hold the plane for you so you can make it.

Senator Williams wishes to express his gratitude.

Senator WILLIAMS. Senator, I will not delay the time. I want to thank you for coming before our committee. I am always glad to welcome you back. While there may be a slight disagreement as to the method of financing these campaigns, I want to say there is no disagreement between us as to the need of legislation in this field. I think that the time is long overdue and your statement will certainly be a great contribution to the committee as we approach this problem. I join with the other colleagues in thanking you for coming here. Mr. DOUGLAS. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Again we want to thank Senator Douglas for coming here today. We are extremely pleased that he did come and testify before us.

(The balance of Mr. Douglas' statement follows:)

When I was Chairman of the first Senatorial Committee on Ethics in 1950-51, I came to the conclusion that the most effective way to cope with these problems was for the government to do as Theodore Roosevelt urged long ago, namely, finance the major share of campaign costs. Since them our former collegeagues, Richard and Maurine Neuberger, have not only advocated this, but introduced bills to effect it. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has adopted such a system which seems to have worked well.

I am more convinced than ever that this is basically the best policy and that is why I welcomed the main thrust of the bill earlier introduced by Senator Long and heartily approve the bills now sponsored by a number of Senators including Senator Long and Senator Metcalf. I am of course also a supporter of the Administration's bill, and I believe that from these and other measures, such as that recently introduced by Senator Gore, a splendid act can be prepared.

I can think of nothing more necessary than such legislation, and while any measure will inevitably have some weaknesses and faults, the preponderance of benefit is on the side of each and all of these bills. I regard such legislation as preferable to tax credits or making such donations deductible since as Senator Long has well said, these methods "provide more of an incentive for those in the higher income brackets to make contributions than for taxpayers of more modest means." I also do not want to see the income tax system further eroded.

As I have said, I believe that from the composite of these bills and other suggestions, a very excellent final measure can be prepared without excessive difficulty. I would like to mention some of these desirable features:

1. The Long and Metcalf bills overcome certain crucial weaknesses in previous proposals for government financing, namely, (1) they involve the participation of the individual voter in the financing process, and (2) they make funds available during a campaign and not merely afterward.

As I look back upon my earlier proposals for outright government financing of election costs, they were subject to the just criticism that they did not involve the individual voters. The government was to pay out the money at the rate of 10 cents a registered voter to candidates on the ballot for President, Senator or Congressman. Individual contributions of money were barred, but those of time and effort were permitted. Along with many good results, they would, however,

have greatly weakened the sense of participation in political matters which should be encouraged and not weakened.

Secondly, money is needed during the campaign period and not afterward. Both of these important purposes will be served by giving certificates or scrip to voters by one means or another which they can endorse personally in favor of a Presidential candidate. In this way the individual voter can take part in the financing. Moreover, the voter should be permitted to transfer the voucher to a committee which can be authorized to act. I think he should be permitted to turn the certificate over not only to an authorized party or personal committee, but also to other bodies such as the Americans for Constitutional Act, the John Birch Society, or Americans for Democratic Action, the National Association of Manufacturers and the political arm of the AFL-CIO, etc. The interest of these groups will therefore also be enlisted, and they can help in the collection of funds for candidates. As the Comptroller General (or his agents) receives these certificates, he will make payments to those groups turning them in for redemption. The candidates and parties will therefore receive funds when they are needed and not be compelled to borrow on the expectation of being reimbursed.

Due to the great increase in campaign costs since 1951, I believe my earlier ceiling of 10 cents per registered voter is now altogether too low. I agree that a contribution of $1 for the Presidency would be reasonable.

2. In my judgment, this system should also be applied to Senatorial and Congressional candidates as well as to those for the Presidency. As a matter of fact, these are the candidates who need money the most and whose need poses some of the most troublesome problems.

I believe, therefore, that they should be included. If a certificate of $1 be granted for the Presidency, then I suggest that an equal sum be granted for combined contributions to the appropriate Senatorial and Congressional candidates. This could either be in the form of a single $1 certificate which could then be given by the voter to a candidate for one or the other of these offices or two 50 cent certificates be issued, one for the Senate and the other for Congress. On the whole, I would prefer this latter alternative, since the former would tend to produce friction between the candidates of the same party.

I am aware that the dominant parties in one party states and their incumbent Senators and Congressman will not like to have this system finance their opponents. These minorities are at present almost hopelessly handicapped financially as well as in other respects and the dominant parties would naturally like to keep them so. But this is not good for the country. Every state should have a vigorous opposition party so that issues can be threshed out and parties and candidates kept on their toes. Providing grants for the candidates for the Senate and House would help to build up such a two party system. I ask that members of the House and Senate with supposedly sure seats join in making public financing possible for the national Congress as well as fr the Persidency.

3. What should we do about third or minority parties?

I am a believer in the general superiority of the two party system in giving greater national unity and reducing the danger of undue divisions in the public mind. Although I was once a supporter of proportional representation in a period when all parties and virtually all persons accepted the fundamental principles of political democracy, I am not now, because this would give to the enemies of democracy, which now exist on both left and right, the chance to get into the legislative chambers and use the instruments of democracy to tear down the system of democracy. I do not believe this is an incumbent duty of our democratic system to commit suicide.

However, it must be admitted that at times both our parties have become more or less muscle-bound. Possible examples are the period from 1888 to 1896, and again in 1904 and possibly 1924. Here a third party can act as a galvanizing force and permit needed issues and personalities to come to the fore. I therefore would not want to close the door on third parties and would suggest that a party which had polled x percent of the vote, say from 5 to 7 to 10 percent in the previous election, should have the same right for its candidates to be aided as those of the major parties. It would not be too difficult for a party which really represented a substantial part of the public to obtain 5, 7, or 10 percent of the vote without public financing. Or if we wanted to be less restrictive, we could provide that any national candidate actually on the ballot in a given state could receive the appropriate scrip.

4. Should primaries be financed or only general elections?

In one-party states the primaries are more important than the general election. This is also sometimes true in two-party states so far as the Presidency is concerned. But on the other hand, it would be a mistake to finance a multitude of candidates, most of whom would have no chance.

One compromise would be to permit the voter after a primary had occurred to endorse his scrip to any candidate who had received over x percent (10 percent?) of the total primary vote. In this way, the voter could choose as between primary and election contests and be faithful to favorites who had been beaten in the primaries. This is of course not a perfect solution and incumbents will still be fearful of raising up opponents within their parties, but I submit that it would be an appreciable improvement.

5. What should happen to private contributions?

In my earlier proposal I was much too restrictive in forbidding private contributions. I would permit them as supplementary to public financing but place limits on the amounts any one person could contribute and require the publicity of all contributions to all committees or organizations. I would set the maximum for any one federal office at $500 and provide that these must clear through authorized sources, each of which should file a full statement of receipts, including dinners. I do not pretend that the above suggestions are perfect, or that any one of the bills before you is ideal, but I do believe that they are decided improvements. It is important that something be done and this year is a good one in which to do it. I wish to thank all the Senators for their honest efforts to improve the present situation.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is the Honorable Joseph D. Tydings, the distinguished U.S. Senator from Maryland. Senator Tydings was the author of an important amendment to provide public financing of presidential elections on a trial basis in 1968, to reduce the amounts of Government money available in that election, and to require that the money be used for political purposes of getting the messages to the people. He was successful in amending the bill before the Senate and some of his thoughts are incorporated in the bill which is presently before us. We have listened to the Senator's ideas and we have been aided and guided by them.

Senator Tydings is particularly knowledgeable on the subject of political campaigns, because of his position as vice chairman of the senatorial campaign committee.

May I say to you, Senator, I do not particularly envy you that responsibility. Having served on that committee with Senator Anderson on prior occasions, I did find it an interesting experience, though not an enviable one.

Senator WILLIAMS. Senator, I am going to have to leave and I apologize for leaving just before you start making your statement. But I will say that I appreciate your being here, and I certainly will read it.

Again, I apologize about having to leave at this moment.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Senator TYDINGS. Could I say one thing, before you leave, Senator Williams? During the debate on this issue before the Senate, I frequently had the feeling that there was not all that much difference between the suggestions of Senator Williams and Senator Long.

Senator Williams has long been a leader of election reform in the Senate. I think Senator Long did a great public service by getting this whole concept of public financing before the Congress. I think it would be a great tragedy if the momentum for election reform were lost now. I hope that this Finance Committee will come up with some type of program for election reform and the encouragement of public participation in elections. I think it would be a great tragedy, a great opportunity lost, if you did not.

I believe the positions of Senator Williams and Senator Long are really not that far apart. I appreciate that you say you will read my statement. As you will see, I disagree with some of the points of the President and others, but I have some solutions which I think might be worth your consideration.

Senator WILLIAMS. I appreciate that and if it were not for urgency of it, I would not leave. But I will say I agree with you that the enactment of legislation is far more important than views of my own or those of the Senator from Louisiana. We have talked this over and I think he feels as I do, that the main objective here and the most important thing is that we do get some constructive improvement in the existing situation.

I agree with you, I do not think that there is any difference in the objective we are trying to achieve as between any of the Members who have been making this proposal, including the Senator from Louisiana. I am confident that we will be able to get together and work something out.

I certainly will promise you that we must make the best effort as far as I am concerned. I will certainly read your statement with interest.

I do apologize, because something beyond my control says I have to leave.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, just a moment. We may be able to resolve that problem. Our chief of staff, Mr. Vail, has a message for us.

Mr. VAIL. The entire message is that the Senate is having a live quorum at the moment. Immediately after the live quorum, they are going to vote on an amendment by Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts to the redistricting bill. The majority leader has sent a message that he would like you, Senator Tydings, to be there to read the amendment, regardless of whether or not you are now testifying.

The CHAIRMAN. Since we have to be back this afternoon anywaySenator, could you come back at 2 o'clock?

Senator TYDINGS. Yes; I can be back.

The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps Senator Williams can be here and we can accommodate the Senator a little bit better.

Senator TYDINGS. I will be back, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. We shall recess until 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the committee recessed until 2 p.m., of the same day.)