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, Į 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, 1567. 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. The privilege of expressing my views in Committee could possibly give a "grass roots view" which would be helpful in writing this legislation. Thanking you very kindly, I remain, Sincerely, WILLIAM D. BROWN, President. ANN ARBOR, MICH., June 28, 1967. Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR LONG: It is my understanding that the Finance Committee is scheduled to report to the Senate by July 21st on the subject of campaign financing. I wish to bring to your attention some remarks which I made during debate on this subject in the House of Representatives on October 20, 1966. A copy of those remarks, as they appeared in the Congressional Record of that date, is appended. As you will observe I proposed that funding of campaigns for national, as well as state and local, office be dispersed, not from Washington, but from the grassroots. I believe that this approach is uniquely within the tradition of American political life, yet I have not seen any evidence that it has been considered by the Senate. Furthermore, I believe that a plan such as I suggest would find far stronger backing in Congress than the one now being discussed. While I recognize that your hearings have undoubtedly been completed by this late date, I would very much appreciate the opportunity to testify before your Committee on this matter if a suitable occasion should arise. With every good wish, Sincerely, WESTON E. VIVIAN. Mr. Speaker, the conference report now before us on H.R. 13103, proposes, as has been thoroughly discussed this evening, that starting in 1967 each individual taxpayer be given an option to divert exactly $1 per year of his Federal income tax payment to a special Treasury fund. This fund would be equitably allocated between the major national political parties to help defray the costs of presidential campaigns. Mr. Speaker, this scheme definitely does have some merit. In particular it provides a simple, direct, and practical process by which large numbers of people individually can contribute a small amount to national political campaigns, sufficient to fund these campaigns moderately well, and thereby relieving the candidates of the necessity of depending on a limited number of affluent givers. This scheme therefore would reduce the influence of wealthy individuals or organizations upon the National Government. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there are two very basic faults of this scheme which overshadows its merits: First, the funds are to be available only for presidential elections, rather than all elections at all levels of government; and the funds will be dispersed according to the inclinations of national party leaders, persons who to date seldom have been known to the public, and hardly immediately subject to broad public choice. Mr. Speaker, this good idea is being applied wrongly. Suppose instead, these funds were allocated, in proportion to the number of voters each delegate receives, directly to the control of the local precinct delegates, elected precinct by precinct throughout the Nation by the voters of each Party. These delegates, who would be your neighbors, and probably well known to you, in turn would distribute the funds over which they gained control, to the local, State, and National candidates and party organizations as they so desired or more particularly as they would have promised prior to their own election. The control of political party activities and finances then would stem from where it should-the neighborhood level, the grassroots of politics, rather than from the Nation's political center. Hon, RUSSELL B. LONG, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR LONG: At a recent meeting of the Board of Directors of the American Farm Bureau Federation consideration was given to the legislative situation relative to the financing of political campaigns. Our Board directed that a background discussion sheet on this issue be prepared for the consideration of State and County Farm Bureaus this fall as part of our policy development procedure. Recognizing_that the issue might reach a decisive point in this session of the Congress, our Board took two additional actions, as follows: 1. That we oppose the use of appropriated tax funds to finance political campaigns. 2. That we support, as a preferred alternative to the use of appropriated tax funds, a provision for an income tax deduction for political contributions up to $100 per person. We are not submitting the second proposal as a positive recommendation for action at this time, but only as a preferred alternative to the appropriation of tax funds. We believe the income tax deduction approach has at least one important advantage over the use of appropriated funds in that it leaves each individual free to determine the use of his funds. If this issue is carried over until 1968, we expect to be in a position as a result of grass roots discussion of the issue-to submit more specific recommendations relative to the whole question of financing political campaigns. It will be appreciated if you will include this letter in the hearing record. Sincerely yours, JOHN C. LYNN, A PLAN FOR ESTABLISHING A BROAD BASE FINANCING FUND FOR ELECTION CAMPAIGNS TO COVER STATE AND NATIONAL ELECTIONS (Submitted by Jane Planck, June 28, 1967) Mr. Chairman and Members of the Finance Committee, please accept my thanks for granting an interested citizen the opportunity to present to you her concept of a practical approach to broad base financing not only for Presidential elections but also for Congress and each state. The plan presented here is without formal backing of any established organization; it is the purely personal result of my thinking two years ago that one of the most pressing needs in this country is to find some way to stop the wild spending spree that breaks loose upon us with every election; and that as a nation we need a unifying project-something capable of embracing every home equally, These two thoughts united naturally to develop a workable concept for broad base campaign financing. The method presented here is a straight one dollar tax collected annually and divided between parties in accordance with the party preference stated at the time of registration. Budgets are projected from the total vote figures of the 1964 elections. A chart showing the possible Fund available for thirty-two states is included with this statement, and before mentally closing the door on the thought of making this a tax, please consider with an open mind the realistic approach of the plan projected here and withhold final judgment until it can be witnessed in its entirety. This country had its inception in a natural resistance to "Taxation Without Representation"; but this is "Taxation For Representation" and it should be favorably received by the public generally as a simple solution to a staggering problem. This tax can provide representation by public officials given as clear a mandate to live up to their highest sense of right as has ever been offered to any governing body by the governed; and this program is enhanced by virtue of the fact it includes state governors and legislators as well as Federal officials. Events of recent years have burdened the conscience of the country and it is my firm belief that a practical solution to this accelerating problem would find ready acceptance throughout the country if it is properly presented. The most poignant evidence calling out for reforms to correct campaign financing ills came in the statement to this Committee by a man who "stands very tall in the saddle". As citizens we have no right to force honorable men-and I quote from this most honorable man's remarks-we have no right to force men "to seek loopholes in the law" . . . "to be less than frank and to resort to surreptitious methods to carry out the legitimate and honorable purpose of making democracy work The 1964 campaign proved a willingness in the country to give general support to Campaign Financing. This willingness needs to be credited with a method capable of developing into a solid system including all eligible voters and cultivated to that end with every means of available communication. It is a figment of dreams and shadows to believe that citizens will voluntarily go down the line for a check-off system of any kind-even at no personal cost. Such a system also encourages further a policy of letting the government assume responsibility that correctly rests with the individual; and in this instance even the voter on welfare can manage one dollar per year to support a free government. His voice becomes as loud and clear as that of the wealthiest citizen. This modestly scaled tax encourages a sense of individual pride in meeting and overcoming a seemingly insurmountable problem, once again proving the power of free people united in the American way. The details of collecting and administering the Fund nationally and state-wise are presented in an attached statement. Briefly, they involve establishing whatever legislation would be required to make the payment possible; it sets forth an uncomplicated system of payment through the purchase of a one-dollar stamp1 (and the actual purchase is important to implementing the success of this program); it provides for collection of the stamps, and assignments of operaing budgets and directives for payment of campaign expenses. The Fund is not divided equally between the parties but is allocated in accordance with the party preference stipulated by the voter at the time of registration. Minority parties would be required to qualify before becoming eligible for the Fund. The problem of one-party states and low density population presents itself, and the only feasible solution to the first would be to use a state with a comparable population and use its figures to allocate the Fund in the same manner for the one-party state. Circumstances might make the Fund adequate in the low-density state. The purchase of a stamp or the processing of a receipt involves committed action on the part of the individual. He must exert himself to buy the stamp, to protect it to the moment of presentation (at which moment it crystallizes as evidence of his invested interest in his government; and for the duration of this period at least he is actively aware of personal involvement in his government. The programing of budgets and directives for expense payments is handled by the GAO under the Comptroller General for Presidential elections and by that department in each state designated for this purpose for all other elections. A Presidential and an off-year election would be required before a realistic budget could be forecast to meet nominating, primary, and election campaigns. To be a complete concept each step of an election process needs the protection of financial independence. If experience gained from the first tax Fund use and the projected figures based on increased voter population indicated an amount short of meeting expenses, the annual tax could be adjusted. Any such adjustment would be nominal since the original dollar provides expenses for a major campaign while the two preliminary steps are not so demanding. In any event, it would still be the best buy on earth for the money. 1 By dividing the Fund between Federal and State elections and assigning a specific budget to each candidate (and this is accomplished through notification of credit-not cash) the burden of solicitation is lifted leaving individuals or groups free to align with that candidate whose expressed ideas are most nearly compatible with their own. This plan also eliminates the burden of debt that often plagues the losing candidate. Informal conversations with a few Congressmen and Senators brought out the fact that one Congressman from a less populous state considered $1500, sufficient for his election effort; another from a Northwestern state said it would take $15,000 and interestingly the figures developed on the basis of the last election for these two states produced an almost identical amount. A Senator stated in this Committee that he has been advised his TV coverage alone would be $500,000, for his next campaign. This is an exhorbitant figure and represents the need to establish reasonable rates in this medium; nevertheless, the total amount of the Fund available to this Senator would have been $2,882,304. The opposing candidate would have had an equal amount. In regard to television, it was suggested at one point that this medium should be made available free to candidates. This would be punitive and if the new approach is to be right it must benefit all. Equitable rates should be set and everyone concerned would find relief in a campaign shortened to six weeks, thereby reducing the cost of television further. The stipulation that leaves all monies deposited with the Treasury Department and the State Treasurer's office eliminated the possibility of Fund misuse. The assigned budget leaves the use of the Fund up to the wise, or unwise, discretion of the candidate. If unwise, he loses. The post-election audit by State and Federal authorities assures full disclosure of Fund use. 1 This could be a simple receipt issued]by the Post Office. For the first-time application of a Tax Campaign Fund, the financing of nominating conventions and primaries could continue under the present system, with the exception that all managers be required to submit a complete record of expenses for the purpose of projecting future budgets to accommodate these conventions also. This system is compulsive but it is reasonable to think that any plan will meet with the widespread acceptance necessary to produce adequate funds by general involvement. With today's communication media so highly developed a thoughtful program could be directed toward showing the public that between an enforced contribution from them, and the pressures of personal influence on their officials, the former is by far the lesser problem. Furthermore, it is my belief that the benefit to the nation of broad base financing would find overwhelming support among the young voters who are now or will shortly be the largest single voting bloc in the country, and who are displaying an active interest in the affairs of government. Young people are not looking with favor on the excessive spending for election campaigns. They are ready for reforms and if these are not initiated by those in positions to see the need and act on it, they will have the voting power to enforce their own changes. This plan as a regular tax has found favor with several people whose judgment and discernment commands respect. I believe that a poll taken with considered questions would reveal general preference to this method rather than to continue compounding present problems. Although the Federal Campaign receives only 25 of each dollar annually under this plan the other 75¢ remaining in the State where it is collectedit is suggested that the Presidential and State Funds be combined in one payment to help simplify and reduce costs of their administrative routines. Budget forecasts could also go forward simultaneously. It should be possible for the States and the Capitol to unite at this one point for an ultimate goal so rich in blessing for all. Since the purpose of broad base financing is to eliminate "big money" spending, individuals who wish to exercise their right to support their candidate by a private effort could in this instance sublimate an expression of that right to accomplish the ultimate goal. This concludes my statement and covers the major part of a proposal to let all the country unite to correct a monumental problem-through individual effort. Thank you again for your courtesy and the privilege of a hearing. VOTER FUND FOR ELECTION CAMPAIGNS COLLECTION Establish an Election Tax (Campaign Fund Tax) at $1 per year per eligible voter. This severs the connection between the vote and a Fund payment. Keep the Tax Fund payment separate from the Federal Income Tax. To help emphasize general participation it could be paid at local Post Offices with a receipt issued to be presented at Registration time in evidence of payment. Similarly, a record of non-payment would be compiled and forwarded to those responsible for processing the fine. Establish two or three pre-announced days for payment and augment the Post Office staff with appointed "volunteers" to collect it. The allocation of Funds to the major parties and to any qualifying minor party is determined by stated voter preference at the time of payment; thereby simplifying the later Fund distribution. A minor party member could, if he so desired, direct the allocation of his dollar to a major party but register as a minor party member. To make the Fund more equitable in one-party states, another state of equal population could be used as a guide for distribution until such time as natural registration would make both parties equally independent. An additional aid might be required in lightly populated states. Nonpayment of the tax does not prohibit the right to vote but makes the voter liable for a fine, one heavy enough to encourage early compliance. The distribution of the total collection is determined by the compilation of a budget originating from the records of preceding campaign expenses. PROCESSING Money Orders are mailed by each Post Office to: 1. Secretary of the Treasury for Presidential Elections. |