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,

ANDREW J. BIEMILLER, Director, Department of Legislation.

WALTER DAVENPORT SONS, INC.,
High Falls, N.Y., June 7, 1967.

Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG,

Chairman, Senate Finance Committee,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

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.
Sincerely,

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 I 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.

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