As a certified public accountant, I can earn in excess of $20,000 a year. As a state senator, I just can't do it, I can't make that kind of money-even though I'm still a CPA. The problem of trying to do two jobs results in not being able to do either one of them very well. You have three kinds of expenses. The first and most obvious is the cost of getting elected. Theoretically a good politician should be able to raise enough from friends and political supporters to cover his campaign. As a matter of actuality, I have never talked to a politician who was able to raise enough that way. All the members of the Fulton County delegation and everyone else I've met had to spend money out of their personal funds. The most obnoxious part of politics for me, the part I literally despise, is that one has to humble himself before his friends and even before strangers, asking them to support him financially. You may not take a whole lot of money-I've never received any large contributions-but if someone gives you fifty dollars, you feel indebted to him. Later on, when he's got a bill he's interested in, he'll come see you. You're put in a compromising position, an embarrassing position. Nonetheless, you have to get the money from somewhere. It's not easy, either, especially the first time, because you're an unknown. And the average citizens, even those who encourage you to run, don't care enough about government to finance a candidate. I remember after I had announced for my first campaign coming back to some of the people who had urged me to run and saying, “All right, I'm in this thing. Can you help me out financially?" And they'd say, "Sure! Here's ten dollars." Maybe they only had ten dollars, but they wouldn't take the time to call ten friends and try to get ten dollars out of them. I never had any strong financial supporters. Some people do. Carl Sanders, for instance, had J. B. Fuqua. Ellis Arnall, on the other hand, personally financed the vast bulk of his costly campaign even though he was the front-runner and people thought he was going to win. That had a lot to do with my own decision, seeing what happened to him. When I entered politics, I was an unknown in a nine-man race. I had to become known, and my race cost about $10,600, almost all of it mine. That put me in debt right at the beginning of my political career, and I was never able to get out of debt again. The initial loss, then, is the loss of the campaign expense. On top of that, you have the loss of the income you could have earned while you were out politicking. In my case, I charge $30 an hour as a CPA. Every hour of politicking, making a speech or shaking hands, is $30 out of my pocket. I had no income during my first campaign because I devoted full time to getting elected. So it actually cost me considerably more than $10,600. Really, I if had known I was going to get that deep in debt, I would have stayed out. But once started, there was no way of stopping it. Of course, it could have been worse; I could have been defeated and still have been in debt. But at least then I could have gone back to work and rapidly paid off the bills. So you get elected, and you're paid practically nothing. The salary's been raised now, but for four years I made only $2,000 a year for my Senate work. I felt I owed the job at least 50 percent of my time; at that rate my whole time would have been worth only $4,000 a year which is sort of ridiculous. Now, of course, the salaries are $5,200 a year, including expenses, which is a lot better. If I'd had the $5,200 to begin with, I'd probably still be in politics. But $5,200 still isn't enough. At the beginning, I thought that being elected to public office would help my business. I think most people have that idea; they think because you receive honors and get your name in the paper every day and have the title of senator that your income is somehow increased. The reverse is true, because of the time the job takes away from you. Immediately after you're elected, suddenly you're bombarded with people who want to talk to you about political matters. You have to have lunch with them or have them come by your office. You're invited our to meetings and to make public appearances and you find your time is no longer your own, even before the legislature is in session. In the month of December particularly, just prior to the session, a legislator is called on practically full time. In my opinion, that month you work free for the taxpayers. It's just a total loss. Then in January the session starts. Originally I'd thought I could do a little work during the session, at night and on the weekends; I'd always worked long hours anyway. But if you're conscientious, and I tried to be, you get immersed in the importance of passing laws-you've got a thousand bills introduced during the session and you try to be an expert on all of them—and you end up devoting all of your time during the session to being a legislator. But finally the session's over and you say, "Well, at least now I can get back to work." But you're called upon twelve months of the year to make speeches and attend meetings. People call you with problems and you've got to take time to listen even if you can't help, or else they feel they aren't communicating with their legislator. The third major cost of holding office is the extra expense, like getting a wedding invitation from someone you never heard of and being expected to send a gift. You find when you get elected to office that the number of wedding invitations and birth announcements sent you will multiply about tenfold. What it boils down to is that people take advantage of public officials. You have a wider circle of friends; anybody in public office gets out and gets to know a whole lot more people than the average man. And the more people you know, the more people you have to take out to lunch, the more organizations you're invited to join-and of course, when you join you have to pay dues-and you get put on the boards of charitable organizations and they have dinner meetings and you're expected to pay the cost of the dinner meeting. You're expected to send flowers to funerals of people you normally wouldn't send flowers to because you're in public office. Much of this I didn't do because I just couldn't afford it. I simply did not send flowers to a lot of funerals and did not buy gifts for a lot of people who got married. But there are some that you have to do, and they add up to a tremendous cost. These are the three major expenses I found. And to me it's a great tragedy. I could see from my own experience how easy it would be for a man to enter politics full of idealism and honesty and integrity, and to gradually get deeper and deeper in debt, and at some point to begin to make compromises minor financial compromises to begin with-and gradually find himself obligated to other people. I can see how a guy could really get himself into trouble, how an honest man could turn into a dishonest man gradually over a period of years and never realize what had happened to him until it was too late. This scared me to death. I saw my children growing older and my income going down, and I finally came to the conclusion that I would have to get out of politics if I wanted to maintain my integrity. I can't say whether there are many temptations to sell your vote in the Georgia Senate. I've always been such an independent and so outspoken that I was never approached. If somebody had made me an offer I would have accepted it and then turned them in and had them arrested-and they knew it. But there were tremendous rumors during one particularly controversial issue that involved great amounts of money this past session-rumors of legislators being on the payrolls of various concerns. Whether the rumors were true, I just don't know. I'd like to think they were not. Obviously, something must be done. The state needs no officials who would make ends meet dishonestly. The state does need the best men it can find in public office, and that means making it possible for all good men to run-not merely the rich ones. A big salary raise for legislators, a minimum of $12,000 per year, plus $6,000 expenses is needed. Then the man who was dedicated could afford to take the time required to be dedicated. The man who wasn't dedicated would be a loss to the taxpayers, but the gain of more men who were dedicated being able to run for office and stay in office would certainly offset the loss. Setting an arbitrary limit on campaign expenses wouldn't help much. There are too many ways to make such a law unenforceable. However, a law requiring full disclosure of expenditures and sources would let the public know if a politician were obligated to some selfish interest group. The man who has the advantage in today's politics in Georgia is the man who is accepting money from someone, who has sold his soul, so to speak. He's got the money and nobody knows it. The guy who's trying to be honest doesn't have the money, yet so far as the public knows he may have just as much. Some say the public, in the interest of obtaining good candidates and honest government, should foot campaign expenses. South Carolina provides public forums in the governor's race; all the candidates travel around together and speak together at the state's expense. But raising salaries seems simplest and best. Georgia isn't the only state that pays its legislators low wages, but some states pay better. New York, Michigan and Pennsylvania pay their legislators respectively $15,000, $17,500 and $9,000 per year. To reduce the burden to taxpayers in Georgia, both houses of the legislature could be reduced in size. This would benefit the state in any event, with or without a pay raise. Let me tell you what five years of public office meant to me financially and personally. If it hadn't been for some property I inherited in South Carolina, I wouldn't have been able to enter politics at all. I mortgaged that. There's a second mortgage on my house. In addition to that, I owe the bank about $10,000 in opentype notes. Our standard of living decreased very quickly after I was elected. For the past four years, my wife has taken in sewing to help pay some of the bills. I expect she's the only state senator's wife in America who has to do that. The people in the neighborhood knew it, but the general public didn't. She sewed for the dry cleaners behind our house. For the first time in my life I was delinquent paying creditors. All my life I'd paid every bill on the tenth day of each month, but suddenly I wasn't able to anymore. This looks crazy-being a CPA and not being able to manage your own affairs, apparently. When you're nobody and you're delinquent paying your bills, only your creditors know it; but if you're in public office and you name is a household word you feel like everybody knows it. I understand, however, that most public officials are late in paying their monthto-month bills. For five years, I've never been able to catch up. I'd borrow some money and catch up for a while, but in a month or two I'd be behind again. It's extremely embarrassing to get delinquency notices and have people threatening to sue you. Of course, a lot of people were awfully nice about it; I think some gave me more credit than they would normally have, gave me more time to pay. I even thought about getting out of the CPA business and into something else where I could make more money and still be a senator. I thought perhaps some company would like to have the prestige of a state senator working for it. I even had friends feel out numerous businesses in Atlanta-but I never found any interested in a politician, or at least not in one who was independent. I also offered myself as controller or treasurer of various firms, sirce that would be in my line of work. A number of concerns said they would hire me immediately if I would get out of politics. But none wanted to dirty its hands with a practicing politician, through you hear all the time of organizations urging their executives to get involved in civic affairs, run for office. To me, all this speaks badly for business I'm inclined to think business would get a whole lot better break from politicians if they would support politics more. Then this job in Peru came along, and I decided to take it. It has certain advantages the main one being that my income will be tax exempt when I stay out of the country for 18 months. I came to the conclusion that the quickest way I could get caught up again would be to get out of the United States. This wasn't the only attraction the Lima job held, but it was a big one because I didn't particularly want to leave Atlanta. When I finish with this job in two years, I'm coming back to Atlanta and resume my practice as a consultant on governmental administration and finance. And I'm going to stay in my professional field. I'll never run for public office again. Senator RUSSELL B. LONG, BLUE WHITE GRILLS, INC., Martinsburg, W. Va., April 13, 1967. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Regarding the Presidential Campaign Fund Act and the amendment pertaining to expenditures of Congressional candidates; I should like you to consider the following. The present Federal limitations on Congressional Campaign Funds places an honest, conscientious, "first time out candidate" into the position of choosing one of the following courses of action: 1. Spend the amount of funds authorized by Federal law and accept the fact you will have little or no chance of election to office. 2. Resort to concealing expenditures, trickery, deceit, hypocrasy and allowing special interests to take over both the campaign and the candidate. This un-healthy condition tarnishes a candidate's thinking even as he is attempting to sell the voters on his integrity, honesty and intelligence. 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 for— the 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. ,)』,(, 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 |