They perfect and refine the central concept which the Congress itself established in its 1966 Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act: that the public interest calls for public financing of Presidential campaigns. They serve the cause of our free political institutions in these ways: By enabling Congress to determine the major costs of campaigning—such as radio, television and travel-and providing direct appropriations to defray those costs, they remove the uncertain reliance on such measures as a tax check-off. By lifting the heaviest burdens on campaign financing from the candidates' shoulders, but still allowing private contributions for the more tradition al expenses such as salaries and overhead-they strike a proper balance between a public and private system. By limiting, for use in any one state, the amount of federal funds to 140% of that state's population in proportion to the population of the country, they prevent the possibility of a National Committee strangling the growth and initiative of local political organizations. By establishing reasonable rules for the eligibility of minor parties to receive Federal funds, they address themselves in the most realistic way yet proposed to the complex problems of third parties. By providing for the strict accountability and policing of the use of funds by the Comptroller General, they offer strong safeguards against abuse. In sum, I believe the President's proposals offer the Congress and the country a basic and workable plan for reform, in an area where the progress of our society shapes the crucial need for that reform. I would counsel against simple prescriptions which offer no cure. Take, for example, the matter of "free" radio and television time. Of course, to the extent that free time is made available, it would reduce campaign expenses. But consider the following: How much free time could be made available--and would this be sufficient to carry the issues to the public? Is it advisable to transfer to private profit-making firms the burden of subsidizing so basic a public responsibility? Would the spontaneity and vitality of the political process be injured through regimentation? For free time inevitably imposes restrictions on style and format. How much free time should be extended to minor parties? And which minor parties? Beyond these questions is one certain conclusion which is inevitable on the basis of our experience-limited though that experience is. "Free time" is deceptive, for it is not entirely free at all. In 1960, we learned, for example, that a 15-minute national network "spot" program-worth $75,000 and granted as free time-nevertheless cost two-thirds that amount just to promote it and encourage the public to view it. That $50,000 would never be included in free-time allowance, and yet expenses such as this would be a major part of funding any campaign. Even though the nethorks provided six hours of free time to each candidate in the 1960 campaign the largest amount ever granted-television expenses forthe Democratic Party still totalled more than $6 million. And considerably more was spent for television in the 1964 campaign. Nor is the device of a tax credit for presidential primaries and election contests the panacea it may seem. I urge you to consider these facts: Such a credit, designed to encourage widespread citizen participation in the elective process, would not be available to the millions of Americans-about 25% of the eligible voters-who have no tax liabilities. To be properly enforced, a credit would compel citizens to disclose their party affiliations to tax agencies of the government. A credit applied to primaries could create instability by diverting funds away from the election campaign itself. A tax credit, limited in amount and applied to all federal election contests and even local campaigns some have suggested, would set off a frenzied race for the taxpayer's creditable dollar. Whichever candidate reaches the citizen first will probably get his contribution, leaving nothing for the next candidate who rings the doorbell. Thus, because of these uncertainties, political parties will still have to rely on the traditional methods of fund raising, of the tax credit route which simply pile new problems on top of old ones. d These examples only illustrate some of the complexities of the issues we are dealing with. The President's proposals do not shrink from these complexities. Rather they seek to master them. The question of Presidential campaign financing as we now face it is unique in our time. The challenge it poses is aimed directly at the survival of our democratic process. I believe the President's proposals meet this challenge in the wisest and most effective way that has yet been devised. They offer a realistic and intelligent solution to this urgent problem-a problem which transcends political parties and goes to the root of the American political system. I strongly endorse those proposals with a conviction forged by 30 years experience in the political arena. Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is to indicate the general position of the AFL-CIO with regard to some of the major issues posed by the bills on campaign financing which are before the Senate Finance Committee. However, we will not undertake to discuss the details of the numerous bills. In the first place, the AFL-CIO believes, as we testified last year, that the growing cost of political campaigns and the desirability of minimizing dependence on wealthy contributors make desirable some degree and form of government ubsidy. As respects the form that a subsidy might take, at least four alternatives have been suggested: (1) direct appropriations by Congress; (2) issuance of vouchers or certificates to taxpayers, and perhaps others, which could be endorsed to candidates or committee and would be redeemed by the Treasury; (3) tax credits; and (4) tax deductions. Of these alternatives the AFL-CIO regards the first, i.e., direct appropriations, as the best, and the fourth, i.e., tax deductions, as the worst, with the other two proposals coming somewhere in between. Direct appropriations by Congress would have three advantages: the cost would be equitably borne by taxpayers as a whole; prospective recipients would know in advance the amounts they could receive; and this proposal would be the easiest and cheapest to administer. At the opposite pole, the AFL-CIO regards any proposal for a tax deduction as wholly indefensible. Under a graduated income tax any tax deduction for political contributions is weighted in favor of taxpayers in the higher tax brackets. It would be utterly unjust to make it cheaper for wealthy than for not so wealthy taxpayers to contribute. Moreover, tax deductions have a tendency to concentrate the making of contributions in a particular economic segment of the community. The AFL-CIO thinks that the broader the support of political activity, the better. The AFL-CIO regards a tax credit of $10.00 or less as an acceptable, though less desirable, alternative. Under such an arrangement the benefit would be the same to all taxpayers, regardless of their income tax bracket. We also think that there is substantial merit in the voucher and certificate proposals. However, we think direct appropriations preferable to either a tax credit or a voucher arrangement from the standpoints of ease of administration and the desirability of the recipients knowing in advance what amounts they can expect. A further policy question is whether, assuming some sort of public subsidy, the amounts given to competing parties or candidates should be equal, or should vary according to votes received, or should depend upon the designations of individual citizens. The President has proposed that equal amounts be allocated to the candidates of the major parties, with pro rata amounts, based upon the vote polled, to minor party candidates receiving a required minimum vote. All in all, we believe that that is an acceptable solution. Another major issue posed by the various proposals is what election campaigns should receive some degree of public financing, i.e., whether only presidential campaigns, or also congressional campaigns, should be included; and whether public support should be extended to primary campaigns. 79-540-67-33 We do not perceive any difference in principle between presidential and congressional campaigns, and as Senator Metcalf has pointed out it may be more difficult for congressional than for presidential candidates to raise money, with greater consequent undesirable obligation on the part of congressional candidates to a few contributors. Nevertheless, because public financing of political campaigns would be new in this country, we believe that it should probably at this time be limited to presidential campaigns. If it works satisfactorily there, and when additional data on costs has been obtained, public financing could be extended to congressional campaigns. We do not believe, however, that primary campaigns, or presidential preference primaries, should ever be included. The number of candidates who would emerge would likely be so large as to make public financing inordinately expensive. Furthermore primary election practices, and particularly the conduct of presidential primaries, differ greatly from state to state. It has been proposed that public subsidies reimburse only campaign expenses incurred after September 1 of a presidential election year. We fully agree that campaigns are at present too long drawn out from the standpoints of both expense and incurring public apathy. Two months (plus a few days) would certainly be long enough for the fullest development of the issues and the views of the candidates. As respects ceilings on expenditures in political campaigns, we of course agree that the present ceilings are long outmoded, and we would prefer to see more realistic ceilings adopted. However, there are great difficulties involved in any enforcement of expenditure ceilings, particularly in nationwide presidential campaigns. It may be that more effective reporting of campaign expenditures is the most that can be achieved. I will appreciate it if the Committee will incorporate this letter in the record of its hearings. Sincerely yours, Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, ANDREW J. BIEMILLER, Director, Department of Legislation. WALTER DAVENPORT SONS, INC., DEAR SIR: Regarding President Johnson's new Presidential Campaign plan, on which you are now holding hearings, and which, if approved and passed by Congress, will add another expense to the taxpayers, I would like to urge you to consider the following two ways to lessen the costs of these campaigns: 1. Reduce the length of time of campaigning to five weeks before election. This would materially cut the expenses. Five weeks is long enough for all parties to project their candidates and put their messages across to the public. With the press, radio, and television, much can be done in a much shorter time than formerly. I might say that the American public becomes a little weary after a month of intensive campaigning. More time allocated than this is unnecessary. I believe England has a short period of not more than five weeks when campaigning for seats in Parliament. Why not try it here. I feel it would be most successful and look what you will save the taxpayers. 2. Reduce the length of time of Republican and Democratic conventions and furthermore hold them in September. I'm sure that either or all parties could nominate their candidates in a matter of not more than two days. Then, too, keep it strictly on a serious work basis. I'm sure that both parties are aware of the fact that since TV has taken over, that as far as the general public is concerned, these conventions have become for the most part, a joke and a bore. Let us bring ourselves up to date! Again, by shortening this time by more than half, both parties could save themselves and the future taxpayers great sums of money. Certainly since the taxpayer may foot the bill for these events it behooves you to recommend wherever possible to cut costs. I believe the very reason the President is offering his new plan is because the cost of conducting a Presidential campaign has become so great that no party can run a successful campaign and now wants the taxpayer to pay for these expenses. I again urge you to consider all ways possible to cut the costs of future Presidential campaigns. Your remarks on my suggestions would be appreciated. Very truly yours, KENNETH DAVENPORT. PREPARED STATEMENT OF MRS. ISABEL C. MOORE, BETHESDA, MD. The present system for electing legislators is so harmful to the welfare of our country and inefficient, in these modern technological times/ it is difficult to understand how it could ever have been put into operation, even in the beginning! It must be a hangover from the past when life was difficult/ and people were so accustomed to doing things the hard way, they couldn't be convinced that anything could be done simply. These are the safeguards and simplified reforms that should be made immediately and will have to be adopted eventually/ as it is the only procedure that makes sense: Financing. Nothing could be more logical and justified than the complete financing of national elections by national governments/ and local financing by local governments. This is unquestionably a government responsibility. And nothing should be more welcomed by legislators than this as it would free them to vote, without reprisals, for the welfare of all people, instead of "the party" and powerful, greedy, organized groups and individuals who are only interested in advancing their own welfare/ blindly oblivious to the fact that what hurts their country, hurts them! Every time wages, costs of commodities, and taxes, rise, they have to pay more for them which nullifies their increase in wages and profits. It decreases quality in production which is caused by manufacturers trying to keep prices within reach of lower incomes. It increases government subsidizing of living costs, which everyone has to pay for. The government should allow $10,000 for each candidate, and require strict accounting of expenditures, instead of the huge sum proposed at present. Anyone accepting any other money should be taken out of office and fined. This would make possible a wider selection of competent men and women to take public office. The National Government is planning to help finance educational television with large sums of money, so should arrange to have each candidate alloted equal time during prime hours, on this channel, without cost to government or candidate. Helpless individual tax payers are sickened when they see their hardearned money spent on enormous sums for campaigns/ and many other unnecessary, impractical projects/ the increasing national debt/ the cost of which is eventually paid by higher prices for them, until they are no longer able to pay them and have to have the government subsidize much of it. All costs of living must be reduced by wage and price control which is the only way it can be done! This is just as necessary in peace as war. There should be a gradual adjustment down to a reasonable level so as to not upset the economy. Parties.-All "parties" should be ended! We have no more of a democracy here than many foreign countries have. Candidates are not selected and put into office by all citizens, but by "parties". · Candidate Certification. Any man or woman who wishes to be a candidate should present his or her qualifications to a national or local non-partisan committee for certification as to integrity/ intelligence/ education/ experience/ performance/ not merely being 25 years of age or over/ and a citizen of the U.S. for 7 years! This may have sufficed in past less knowledgeable times, but is completely inefficient now. The committees certifying candidates should have the same qualifications. Electioneering.-All primaries, electioneering, long exhausting, costly campaigns, which take people away from their regular work/ conventions which resemble a New Year's Eve party in an insane anylum/ should be ended. No one has the time or energy for this now! Candidates would present their personalities and views on the government financed educational television for 4 weeks before elections. Circulars giving more details would be distributed, especially qualifications. Voting. Citizens would then vote directly and independently for candidates that have the best qualifications/ not blindly for "party". Major vital issues should be voted on by referenda of all the people, instead of legislators who are under pressure from selfish groups, which has kept them in a deep freeze of political paralysis. This has been the only way legislators could get and keep office/ then they are censured for it! (The following letter and attachment was received by the committee:) WASHINGTON, D.C., June 7, 1967. DEAR EDITOR, Washington Post: The enclosed article, "Why I quit the Georgia Senate," by former Georgia Senator James P. Wesberry, Jr., in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution Magazine April 30, 1967, should be of interest to you as current evidence of the widespread need to relieve incumbent and prospective public servants of the crippling cost of running for office. The current issue of Michigan History, Spring 1967, in "Arthur Vandenberg Goes to the Senate," contains some new findings on the Newberry case in Michigan, which awakened the public to this weakness in our election procedure. More about that classic case can be found in The Iron Hunter, the autobiography of Chase S. Osborn, Governor of Michigan 1910-1912, who was a candidate in the campaign for the Senate with Ford and Newberry, which Newberry won, at killing cost. Governor Osborn discovered at the turn of the century that a man without means could not run for office and hope to remain his own man. He withdrew from the race until he had made enough (for those times) to be independent; but in 1918 he found himself helpless against the $500,000 spent by the Newberry machine. Fifty years later the cost of campaign financing remains a major problem; we do not wish to drift into a plutocracy. Tax exemption on campaign contributions up to a certain amount would encourage wider participation and a division of obligation. A shortening of the campaign would be sensible. Federal subsidies for presidential and congressional candidates might be collectible only by candidates who won a percentage of the votes that would prove their running justified. Some evidence of qualification might be required for candidature, similar to the evidence of qualification required for civil service. I believe that posterity will judge that we have erred in our times by opening the flood-gates for all comers to the extent that our leadership is passing to the aggressive and the acquisitive and the vain rather than to our wisest and most strong of character. Should we not also be considering ways and means to search out and provide extra-special help to those who are exceptionally fitted for public service, except financially? Giant private foundations each year grant aids to exceptionally gifted youth, in various fields, selecting the awardees through nation-wide competitions. Could this idea, which lures the exceptional young person into some neglected field of study, be applied to the attraction and selection of our best timber for public service in the political field? Governor Agnew's proposal of an interneship and an apprenticeship program under adequate-salary conditions, is excellent; but the gifted young administrators would still be in need of some source of adequate and honest campaign financing to advance to the Federal level of elective offices. There is a major threat to our survival at this point. Mrs. CHASE S. OSBORN. [From the Atlanta Journal and Constitution Magazine, April 30, 1967] WHY I QUIT THE GEORGIA SENATE (By James P. Wesberry, Jr., as Told To John Askins) (Editor's Note: James P. Wesberry Jr. of Atlanta resigned from the Georgia Senate to take a job in Lima, Peru, explaining he could no longer afford the financial expense of being a public servant. (Sen. Wesberry's outspoken views on the high cost of politics to the families involved represent his own opinions, and do not necessarily reflect those of The Atlanta Journal and Constitution.) My decision was not a sudden one. It was one I'd been facing, trying to face, for three years. It wasn't long after I was elected to the 37th District before Í began to realize that politics is an expensive business and the poor man who wants to remain honest may not have the opportunity to stay in politics for very long. My political campaigns cost me enough to send all three of my children through college twice, as I said in my statement of resignation. My net worth has decreased by $12,750 since I entered public office in 1962. I estimate that My Senate career has cost me $15,000 per year in lost potential income and out-of-pocket expenses. |