The example that occurred to me is this: what is the posture if the tax credit approach is adopted such as has been proposed these last few days? Someone gives $20 to the party of his choice or the candidate of his choice. Let us assume he gets a $10 tax credit. That man says, now, what if I give $20 to my church? He is in the 14-percent tax bracket. Well, on $20, he gets a $2.80 reduction in tax liability. So there is a substantially more liberal provision for a contribution to a political organization than for a contribution to a man's church. I think that might present some problems.

The principal problem I see is that if we drop the deduction concept, and, through the years, as we go along, substitute the tax-credit concept, then we introduce a complexity that I think would be very unfortunate.

Senator WILLIAMS. I understand the form in which it was recommended. Of course, the proposal that I introduced and the one that was recommended by President Johnson last year was that the $100 deduction would be an extra deduction beyond the regular deduction which those who use the standard form would then get some credit for. It would offset that feature, and those who do not use the standard form, it would be the same, only itemized.

I agree with you, and I introduced the deduction and was inclined to go along with that, although, as you say, there are arguments being made, and I think rather convincing arguments, for some form of a tax credit on a percentage basis.

I would not go for that 100 percent under any circumstances. But I can see the benefits, even though I recognize the danger.

I think the principle we are trying to get here is so important that I am not at all sure that we do not need a combination of the two. Mr. WINTER. I would agree that certainly in lieu of appropriations from the Treasury, a combination of the two, or the tax credit alone, would be preferable.

Senator WILLIAMS. I think the proposal President Kennedy made was a combination-a tax credit on the first $25 and the other $75 would be a regular deduction. But whatever came out of it, I think the major point I want to keep before us is that it is a voluntary contribution by the individual citizen to the party or candidate of his choice and that it is not subject to Government supervision as to whom I contribute or whom I withhold my support from.

I thank you for your contribution.

Senator METCALF. I was going to inquire about the tax credit which was omitted from your statement, but the colloquy that you have had with the Senator from Delaware, I think, has taken care of that inquiry. So I have no questions, and I thank you for your participation and your contribution to this discussion. You have made a major contribution, and we appreciate your appearance, gentlemen.

The committee will be in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow.

(Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, to reconvene tomorrow, Friday, June 9, 1967, at 10 a.m.)

The committee met, pursuant to notice at 10:05 a.m., in room 2221, New Senate Office Building, Senator Russell B. Long (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Long, Talmadge, Williams, and Bennett.
The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order.

Today we conclude our hearings, with regard to public witnesses at least, on the political campaign financing. We have received statements from many diverse interests.

Support has been expressed for the concept of public financing of political campaigns. Tax deductions and tax credits also have been strongly endorsed before the committee.

Today our testimony will be directed primarily at the role played by radio and television in the election process and at the cost impact of air time on the budgets of the political committees.

Our first witness this morning is the Honorable Robert D. Greenburg, Assistant General Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Greenburg, you and your colleagues may take the stand and proceed.

Mr. Greenburg, you and your colleagues are certainly welcome here. We appreciate that you responded to our invitation and we hope you will give us some information we need to legislate responsibly.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. GREENBURG, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT RAWSON, CHIEF, RENEWAL AND TRANSFER DIVISION; ARTHUR SCHATZOW, CHIEF, RESEARCH AND EDUCATION DIVISION; AND JOHN HARDY, GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE

Mr. GREENBURG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the opportunity of coming before you and we hope we can provide the information which you need.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a prepared statement, sir?

Mr. GREENBURG. I do not have a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. I am prepared, if you wish, to give a very short summary of what section 315 of the Communications Act requires with respect to political broadcasts and what the Commission does with respect to that.

437

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you do that, and without objection we will print section 315 of the Federal Communications Act at this point. (Section 315 referred to, follows:)

§ 315. Candidates for public office; facilities; rules.

(a) If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section. No obligation is imposed upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any—

(1) bona fide newscast,

(2) bona fide news interview,

(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or

(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto),

shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this chapter to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.

(b) The charges made for the use of any broadcasting station for any of the purposes set forth in this section shall not exceed the charges made for comparable use of such station for other purposes.

(c) The Commission shall prescribe appropriate rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this section.

Mr. GREENBURG. Senator, if I may, before I start, I would like to introduce my colleagues who are with me this morning. On my right is Mr. Robert Rawson, who is Chief of the Renewal and Transfer Division of the Commission's Broadcast Bureau.

On my left is Mr. Arthur Schatzow, who is the Chief of the Research. and Education Division of the Commission's Broadcast Bureau. And again over on my right is Mr. John Hardy of the Legislation Division of the General Counsel's office.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. GREENBURG. Mr. Chairman, section 315 of the Communications Act basically provides that when a broadcasting station permits a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use the facilities of the station, the station shall afford equal opportunity to all other legally qualified candidates for the same public office. It is important to stress, I think, at the outset that this is limited, the applicability of the section, to candidates and the use of the facilities by the candidates themselves.

Under the statute, station licensees are expressly forbidden to censor any material broadcast under the provision of section 315. The statute further provides that section 315, does not impose any obligation upon the licensee of any broadcast station to permit the use of its station by any candidate.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me stop you right there, if I might, sir, for just a moment. You recognize that if we wanted to, we could impose a duty in the public interest on these stations to provide some free time in these presidential campaigns, do you not? It is our privilege if we want to do it.

Mr. GREENBURG. Yes, I think it is certainly your privilege.

The CHAIRMAN. If we sought to do that, would you cheerfully accept that and do the best you could to administer it?

Mr. GREENBURG. I think as far as the Commission is concerned, I believe this certainly could be done. Let me say that I am not so sure that some people in the industry may not raise some questions as to the authority of the Congress to impose that obligation.

The CHAIRMAN. Right.

Mr. GREENBURG. But the Commission does not.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think they can correctly challenge our authority to do that, our power to do that? Or would it be a matter of challenging the propriety of our doing that?

It is one thing for somebody to say it is not fair, not fit, not just, that should not be done. It is another thing to say we do not have the power under the Constitution to do it.

Mr. GREENBURG. Mr. Chairman, I will give you my personal view without having the benefit, possibly, of all the arguments people on the other side might give. There is no constitutional bar to the authority of the Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Have some contended that freedom of speech applies to the radio and television?

Mr. GREENBURG. The first amendment does apply.

The CHAIRMAN. To the same extent it does to the newspapers? To the extent, for example, that the newspapers can decline to print anything? That is not in the case of a television station, is it? We have the power to make them make time available. In fact, we do. We say if you make time available to one side, you have to make time available to the other. We have no power to make the newspapers do that. Mr. GREENBURG. I think there are certainly distinctions between radio and television stations and the newspapers, to the extent that radio and television stations are making use of a public resource and are, of course, licensed by the Federal Government.

The CHAIRMAN. Therefore, under that Government license, you have the power to make them do things you cannot do with newspapers, because newspapers are not operating under Government license.

Mr. GREENBURG. I certainly would not want to leave the impression that the power to require them to do things is unlimited, but I certainly think it is greater than it is in the case of newspapers.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you and I understand each other. I believe that between your view and mine, we do not misunderstand at all if we are talking in specific terms. I am a member of the Commerce Committee, as well as being a member here. I am aware of what your problem is. I do not believe we misunderstand each other. It is only when we talk in vague general terms that we might not know what the other fellow is thinking.

Go ahead.

Mr. GREENBURG. Getting back to the statute, there is a further important provision that station licensees are prohibited from charging more for the use of their station facilities for a section 315 political use than they charge for comparable use of those facilities for commercial purposes. This, in effect, means that the candidate can't be charged more than the adviser for comparable use of the station. As I say, this is specifically written into the statute.