I see you smiling.

Mr. MANELOVEG. That is a difficult question.

Discount is a difficult question. It depends on whether I have a large advertiser or a small one.

Senator Williams, you asked a question about increase in rates, year by year, why the FCC does not have a report.

We prepare an analysis in our agency. The general increases run from about 4 to 7 percent a year in media-overall. Our estimates are that between 1964 and the 1968 election, prime network television will increase about 25 percent, or about 5 percent a year up to 1968. Spot will increase 35 percent, or 7 percent per year. Newspapers will have increased 10, magazines 20, and network radio, 10 percent. Senator WILLIAMS. Do they file a schedule of rates?

Mr. MANELOVEG. Yes. You mean the various media?

Senator WILLIAMS. The networks and some of the local stations. Mr. MANELOVEG. Yes, they publish their standard rates.

Senator WILLIAMS. Does that publication show the discounts they allow?

Mr. MANELOVEG. Yes; they do, sir.

Senator WILLIAMS. Could you furnish us the published rates for the last 5 years?

Mr. MANELOVEG. The rates are published every month in what we call Standard Rates and Data, and we can furnish those.

Senator WILLIAMS. Will you furnish us these for the last 5 years? Mr. MANELOVEG. Certainly. Would you like the month of October, specifically?

Senator WILLIAMS. Yes. But I would like them all. Mr. MANELOVEG. I mean, would you like every 5 years-the month of October and the month of November for those 5 years? Senator WILLIAMS. I would like the reports for the last 5 years. I understood you said they published them."

Mr. MANELOVEG. Every month.

Senator WILLIAMS. If you would furnish them, I would like to see them for the last 5 years.

Mr. MANELOVEG. Fine.

Senator WILLIAMS. Now, you said something about a 5 percent increase per year. Is this 5 percent increase in the charge, or 5 percent increase in the revenue from advertising?

By that, I mean, you can sell more advertising or charge more.

Mr. MANELOVEG. That is a 5-percent increase in the per-unit rate. Senator WILLIAMS. For each minute, or 5 minutes; that is the rate? Mr. MANELOVEG. Yes.

Senator WILLIAMS. This would show the various charges for the time period?

Mr. MANELOVEG. Yes, sir.

Senator WILLIAMS. Now, do you have a record as to the amount of time that is being set aside by the various networks and by some of the stations, the percentage of the time that is devoted to advertising as compared with prior years? In other words, is that increasing?

Mr. MANELOVEG. We do a continuing report on the amount of commercial minutes on the various media, and the change is very little over the last few years, generally speaking.

You mean, the amount of time available for program versus commerical

Senator WILLIAMS. Commercials; yes.

The Senator from Utah seems to feel the commercials are getting longer.

Mr. MANELOVEG. Perhaps some of the commercials are poorer. I do not think there are any more of them.

Senator WILLIAMS. But you will furnish us this?

Mr. MANELOVEG. Yes.

Senator WILLIAMS. As I understand it, you have had no direct experience with the national campaigns since 1958?

Mr. MANELOVEG. No, sir.

Senator WILLIAMS. At that time, television was not quite the factor it is now?

Mr. MANELOVEG. NO.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony here today. We appreciate it.

Mr. MANELOVEG. Thank you.

(The following information was received pursuant to questions raised during the testimony of Mr. Maneloveg:)

The purpose of this memorandum is to answer the two questions posed by the U.S. Senate Committee on political campaign finances. These questions concern the following areas:

I. TREND OF TELEVISION COSTS

A. Spot Television.-Costs of prime time 20 second announcements in selected markets rose from 20 to over 100 percent between January 1961 and 1967, depending upon the particular market examined. The average increase was about 30-40 percent. (See exhibit I.)

B. Network. The cost of an hour of prime evening network time, excluding talent and production charges, has risen 14 percent during the same period. (See exhibit IA.)

II. THE AMOUNT OF ADVERTISING ON LOCAL STATIONS

A. Nonnetwork. The number of nonnetwork (spot) announcements has increased by only 9 percent between the first 2 months of 1964 and 1967. The greatest increase is evident in the amount of activity classified as "piggybacks" (completely separate commercials for two different products made by the same advertiser within a single announcement). These have increased by over 200 percent during the period of time analyzed. (See exhibit II.)

B. Network.-Network commercials (which are also carried by local stations), have increased very little during the last 3 years. However, we see a substantial increase in the number of network "piggybacks" carried on local stations. (See exhibit III.)

This would lead us to conclude that amount of commercial time presented to the average viewer has not increased substantially in the past years. However,' it might seem to the average viewer that he is seeing more product messages due to the increase in the number of "piggyback" commercials being aired.

Source: Special Broadcast Advertiser Reports Tabulations. On week per month in 75 markets.

1 January-February of each year.

Source: Special Broadcast Advertiser Reports Tabulations.

The CHAIRMAN. The last witness of this session will be Mr. Vincent T. Wasilewski, president of the National Association of Broadcasters.

STATEMENT OF VINCENT T. WASILEWSKI, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS

Mr. WASILEWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a prepared statement?

Mr. WASILEWSKI. No, sir; I do not have.

The CHAIRMAN. The statement to which I would like you to address yourself first is, what would the attitude of the members of your association be to this suggestion that they be required to provide, on a free-time basis, adequate time for presidential candidates to present their case to the American people?

Mr. WASILEWSKI. Yes, I would be glad to respond to that question. May I just indicate, sir, our position relative to this overall problem? The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. WASILEWSKI. We have historically taken the position that section 315 should be repealed. In 1960, as you will recall, the provisions of section 315 were suspended as applied to presidential and vice-presidential candidates. This did result in a considerable amount of free time being made available to those particular individuals.

The CHAIRMAN. That was a good break for the Democrats. That probably had as much as anything else to do with the Democrats winning the election that year.

Senator WILLIAMS. As I understand, the network, the broadcasting industry, asked for similar authority in the 1964 election. They wanted to give them time and the request was rejected.

Mr. WASILEWSKI. We were anxious to have that suspension put into the law, sir; yes, and no action was taken on that proposal.

Incidentally, along that line, I understand that Senator Pastore yesterday introduced a bill that would exempt from the operation of section 315, not only the presidential and vice-presidential candidates, but also, according to my understanding, the gubernatorial, senatorial, and House nominees.

Senator WILLIAMS. That would make it possible to give them this free time, if they wanted to, would it not?

Mr. WASILEWSKI. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. My reaction about this debate business is, it all depends on the circumstances. The last time I ran, I had a nominal candidate. I did not regard him as being a real serious opponent, so much so that one of my friends accused me of putting him in the race.

Now, that fellow is a man well known to me, and he wanted to debate. My reaction was, I was not going to go on television and share the programs that I thought would give him an audience, that if I left him alone, he would not get anywhere. I told people I did not want any free time for debates.

Now, if a candidate wants to take that point of view, what would your reaction to that be, that you would like to be privileged to offer the time, but you would like to be able to use your own discretion whether you offer it or not? Is that it?

Mr. WASILEWSKI. You mean, if I am a candidate, or a station? The CHAIRMAN. No; I am speaking of the broadcasters.

Mr. WASILEWSKI. I think you have touched upon a misconception, sir, of what the suspension feature was. For example, there was no requirement that there be a debate.

Senator WILLIAMS. That is right. Each one got equal time. This is not limited to just debates. It was an allocation of time.

Mr. WASILEWSKI. That is correct, sir. I think, though, that in the popular mind, it was regarded as a requirement for debate.

But, getting back to your question, I would say for the record that we are opposed to any requirement that broadcasting stations make free time available. We believe that any requirement that broadcasting stations underwrite a certain amount of political campaign costs is unrealistic, unworkable, and discriminatory.

So, we are opposed to any requirement that we give free time, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Do you take any position on whether the Government should buy time and make it available to the candidates? It is not directly purchased by the Government but in the administration bill the Government would make the funds available to buy the time. Mr. WASILEWSKI. The organization which I represent, the National Association of Broadcasters, has taken no position on that particular subject. But I am glad that you clarify the point, that your bill does not provide that the Government buy the time for candidates to appear on the stations.

As I understand the bill, it would provide money for the political parties to use in their own discretion and judgment. They may exercise judgment not to use any radio or television time but put it all into newspapers, magazines, loudspeakers.

The CHAIRMAN. Signboards?

Senator WILLIAMS. Mrs. Johnson would object to the signboard phase of it.

Mr. WASILEWSKI. I was curious about that in reading the bill. Senator WILLIAMS. I was, too. I was wondering how the President cleared this on the homefront, because this is a multimillion-dollar signboard proposal advocated here. I am puzzled.

Mr. WASILEWSKI. I am not sure the bill authorizes purchase of billboard space.

Senator WILLIAMS. Oh, yes. I just wonder if he got clearance. Mr. WASILEWSKI. It certainly authorizes poster distribution. Senator WILLIAMS. No, it authorizes payments for billboard advertising, and I was wondering if we were going to have an additional witness here.

Mr. WASILEWSKI. I could interpret that as precluding, per se, the purchase of billboard space, but you could use the money to distribute billboards and do the art work. But I do not know. I am no expert in this.

Senator WILLIAMS. I think you make a valid point here about Congress making it mandatory that they have to give free time. Maybe the licensing of the airwaves may justify it. But for the moment assuming that the decision were made to move into this field with Government funds, we all recognize that these licenses are for use of the air, which belongs to the people.

What would you think of a plan which would be at reduced rates, one which maybe paid their expenses? Since they are operating on a franchise from the Government, do you see anything wrong with asking them in turn to make those facilities available on a modified basis, we will say on a cost-plus basis?

Mr. WASILEWSKI. Well, sir, just as a matter of principle, I do not believe that that would be right. I think that we overlook the fact