NER Washington forum; Election campaign reform, part 1

30 credit in my judgment would raise the potential amounts of money. There were 12 million individual contributors in 164 The vast majority of whom were dollar and two dollar contributed. The credit would encourage more individuals to contribute and encouraged existing contributors to increase the size of their contributions. Well why not make it very simple. And a contribution up to a given amount. And then deduct it from. The taxable income. And let it stand back the voices you just heard were those of United States senators Robert F. Kennedy Democrat of New York and Everett McKinley Dirksen Republican of Illinois. Two of our guests this week on the NPR Washington forum a weekly program concerned with the significant issues before us as a nation. This week a review of the Senate hearings on election campaign reform. This program was produced for the national educational radio network through the facilities of W am you FM American University Radio in Washington D.C.

I'm an E.R. public affairs director Bill Greenwood. The United States Congress is currently involved in a review of legislation which would allow the use of federal funds to finance federal election campaigns. Hearings were held recently at which time New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy outlined his ideas for such a financial arrangement. In addition to Mr. Kennedy you will hear the views of senators Dirksen of Illinois joined Smathers of Florida and James B. Pearson of Kansas. First the statement of Mr. Kennedy to the Senate Finance Committee. His right agreement I think that something on the public support for election campaign. Is needed. Well it's a public office you not have to be obligated or a benefit to be obligated. To large contributors contributors who made it possible for them to stand pref.. Million People should not be deterred from entering politics. By the two have having to

compromise their values or their independence. In order to obtain financing. These are some of the attributes of the present system. I think most of us agree that it is unsatisfactory. And it should be changed. Although we have differed on the precise mechanics of the pro composer we should adopt. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the chairman the senator from Louisiana. For a separate state to enact a campaign financing law. More than any other individual. He has for us this matter onto our agenda of action. And no matter what chrome the final lever takes the lion's share of the credit will be deservedly Heres just taking the bait past the issue of whether there should be a law. So that our only debate now they're a vital one is what kind of a law we should have. I also want to pay tribute to Senator Williams. Delaware and Senator Burr for the efforts that they have me to bring this to the public gets attention in this regard I believe certain fundamental

characteristics of our political structure and structure may suggest the way to the kind of war that we should enact. It is an essential tenet of our political creed for example. That we seek the broadest possible citizen's participation. In the electoral process. We value a large turnout at the polls on Election Day. We value rights but interest in the issues and the personalities involved in the election campaign. We value extensive. Volunteer work in campaigns we value in short all types of individual voluntary initiatives in support of the candidate one's choice campaign financing is quite another application of these principles. Broad financial participation in campaigns at all levels. Local state and federal. Based on individual choice of the candidates to be aided would contribute to an informed involvement. That is at the heart of the democratic process and large scale giving in a small amount. With three

candidates from having to solicit and rely. Upon a small number of large gifts. I believe we can best accomplish these objectives by some form of tax incentives. By which each citizen can contribute to the party or candidates. The committee or organization of his choice and we see part of the goodness of his contribution on his income tax. Tax incentives have a number of advantages. They committed a two candidate and two committees at all levels local state and federal. They permit each citizen to determine who receives contributions they can encourage contributions to candidates in primary elections as well as in general elections so that aid is truly available to men who would otherwise face great financial barriers to entering public life. And they allow for the esprit which comes from getting people out to raise money in small

amounts from a large segment of the population. There are two possible major tax devices. To encourage individual individual participation. A credit and a deed action. I prefer a tax credit. It is the most equitable approach. It is a platypus track subtraction from the amount of income tax otherwise owing. And therefore of equal benefit to all taxpayers. A credit up $10 benefits tax payers $10 worth. For this reason I think it is preferable to a deduction which is a subtraction from the income on which taxes are computed and is of greater benefit to taxpayers in the higher brackets. If you duction of $100 benefit that benefits the taxpayer in a 50 Cent 50 percent tax bracket 50 dollars and the taxpayer in the 20 percent bracket only 20 dollars. Nevertheless a deduction does promote individual choice and participation. So I would favor it as a second choice. The president's

commission on campaigning costs recommended both a credit any deduction in 162 as did President Kennedy and his message to Congress that year. Senator Metcalf budget proposal s 30 90 but also encourage individual choice and participation I believe is the idea they apply merit serious consideration along with the various tax incentive alternatives. But I believe a tax credit is the best approach and I hope the committee will give it a careful consideration. I would support a tax credit of 1 1/2 or contributions of up to 20 dollars for individuals and one half of contributions of up to 40 dollars for married couples filing jointly turns the maximum credit when they happen to be $10 for individuals and 20 dollars for those filing jointly turns such a credit in my judgment would raise substantial amounts of money. There were 12 million individual contributors and 160 for the vast majority of whom were a dollar and two dollar contributors. The credit would encourage more individuals to contribute and

encouraged existing contributors to increase the size of their contributions. Experts estimate that the average annual revenue lost would not exceed 50 million dollars. And would probably be considerably less. In addition this figure does not mean that a hundred million dollars a new funds would be raised since much of the revenue lost would come the money now being contributed. There is of course no particular magic in the 50 percent tax credit. I would not advocate a hundred percent tax credit for two reasons. A healthy sense of responsible participation of players from an individual having a financial stake in its contribution rather than being wholly reimbursed in effect by the government. And the revenue last from a hundred percent tax credit might be extensive. However a 75 or 80 percent tax credit would ease the burden of contributing. To lower income tax payer even further and therefore might well be considered. No one can be entirely sure of course whether the amount raised will exceed a Short of these figures. For that

reason I suggest that we begin with a very modest tax credit which I've described. If it does not raise enough money we can easily raise the percentage or the amount of the credit. By comparison to tax incentives I believe individual participation. Will be discouraged if we use the direct subsidies from the Treasury to finance campaigns. I would be a proper prayer to have the committee consider moving in the direction of encouraging individual contributions through tax incentives. Let me make clear that if I had to choose between dollars from the Treasury and a candidate having to go hat in hand in order to raise money for political office. I would prefer dollars from the Treasury. But the committee's choice is not so combined. And that is why I urge the consideration of tax incentive and particularly a tax credit. I might suggest too that I hope the committee will also explore the idea proposed by Senator Clarke and by Senator girl and others requiring the television networks to provide the time. At least as a presidential candidate this was done successfully in

160 and since the airwaves are the public's property. We should consider making a similar provision for the future. If this were done it would cut down considerably on the money required for a presidential campaign. Since television time has become a major cost component. In this age of instant communication. Aside from the important point of individual participation. I believe tax incentives have other advantages not offered by direct subsidies from the Treasury. Purse tax incentives would a candidate be for the nomination for the presidency or any other office. The way I want to remove any financial qualifications for office and particularly for the nation's highest office. Is deeply wrong for the presidency to be limited either to those who are rich or those who are able to raise money from large contributors. As a senator from Louisiana pointed out a number of occasions on the floor of the United States Senate. But a direct subsidy almost necessarily limited you to activity after the conventions

have nominated their choices could not prevent brakesmen from determining the nominees. Indeed it might only ship their records from the election campaign to the pre-election campaigning by man without great wealth to become a serious contender for the presidency. You must have access to campaign assistance long before the convention during primary campaign elections. But work among the state parties in states which do not have presidential primaries as well. But travel and advertising and for staff and all the other mounting expenses of securing a nomination 964 according to her but Alexander executive director of the Citizens Research Foundation. Senator Goldwater spent five and a half million dollars in quest of the nomination. Governor Rockefeller spent up to five million dollars including two million dollars in the California primary alone. Clearly no post nomination direct subsidy. Would help a man without great wealth. I won without access to big contributions to meet these necessary pre-convention

expenditures. Second the tax incentive plan would help candidates with offices below the presidency federal state and local alike. Such help is vital not only and is that important to have qualified men at all levels of government. But campaign contributions for our office is below the president they are even harder to raise and far more likely to be dominated by a few large givers. Moreover presidential candidates do not spring like many of us up from the brow of Joe. Men earn consideration for the presidency by their moments in other public offices. Most often a governor or senator or expense of a nomination election to a governorship or a Senate seat. Especially in the large states from which most presidential candidates are drawn is by itself a substantial barrier. But men of wealth by their favorite candidates. That's been a consideration for the presidency itself requires public support for campaigns for lesser offices

at all levels. This support can come only from tax extensions to individual money that was the testimony of New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy as he appeared before the Senate Finance Committee considering legislation which would allow federal financial aid for federal election campaigns. A member of that Senate committee is Illinois Republican Everett McKinley Dirksen also the Senate minority leader. We ask Senator Dirksen for his reaction to the testimony and the concept of federal aid for political campaigning. I have no comment to make a moment. Can. And the Finance Committee. Hearing all the changes. It would seem to sing it that it made it. Somehow they try to make just as complicated as possible. Now under the record contribution rule of dealing with the Internal Revenue

Service. If you're going to make a contribution to a church. Where you make a contribution you deduct from income and there is a limitation in the law however as to the percentage of income it can be devoted to that purpose. If you're going to kind tribute to a copy each the same rules apply. Now. I guess one will concede the fact that the United States government is certainly a nonprofit institution. It has made a profit in the 34 years I've been here. And in fact it has been able to keep its fingers have my red ink bottle. So we are after all just so many ministers of a nonprofit corporation. Well why not make it a simple. And a contribution up to a given amount and then be ducted from. The

taxable income and let it stand there. But here they try to put in so many different things that were bewilderingly confused attacker here. And I can understand why we continually depart from the rule of simplicity you reach when it's a bit of a something Jackson there's been talk of a tax credit as opposed to a tax deduction you then would favor the tax deduction approach. When I read a thing so I think it's simpler and I think it's better. And there is no confusion about it. And it follows a standard pattern with which all people from here today. There are very few people in this country who are taxpayers who don't take some contribution detection. Of some kind in the course of a year. You would also then say that there is justification for some type of federal financing of campaigns but I

certainly do not go for the appropriation route out of the public treasury. And I do not go in with the act which we passed last year to check it off on income. And then let them submit their bills to come to a general of the office and then to the Treasury and have them paid because it looks just a little bit too much like a subsidy. That was Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois a member of the Senate Finance Committee another member of Senator George Smathers of Florida senators matters how do you feel about this campaign financing bill. I think we need to pass a bill. I hope that we will pass again. And so fight the presidential campaign is concerned where we will see the money thats needed to run a campaign appropriated from the federal treasury. I believe that it's undignified for the president the United States to have to go around the nation and solicit

contributions. There cannot help but be an intangible influences actors I've known even know he in every instances is the most honorable man you could think of. Nonetheless it's undignified and I think it we have proceeded long and not democracy sufficiently far where we're sophisticated enough at this stage of the proceedings where we ought not to put a candidate through that each year for years. We should have that man Ryan and the two major parties and be financed out of the public treasury I think in the long run would get better government would certainly get less suspicion in government and I think that the president would go in there with a much greater feeling of objectivity and freedom than he can now go into the presidency. Senator Dirksen a moment ago mentioned that his feeling on the subject and said that he would prefer a tax deduction rather than a check off for use of public

funds. Your opinion then would differ from him in that respect and we have a number of people who actually don't pay taxes who ought to be who are eligible. Otherwise I was able to vote. I don't think that we should make it so that it's more advantages to one citizen and then another. And if when we have the tax deductions method we do make it that way. And I think that we are we are as I say I think the concept of public finance to a presidential campaign is sound and I don't go for the other although in the absence of passing a public finance day campaign I would vote for a tax credit. How much money do you envision being bought out of the public treasury for such a campaign. I would suspect you'd be in the neighborhood of about 20 million dollars it seems to me that a presidential campaign could be run in in the neighborhood of. Eight

to nine to ten millions of dollars in addition to that I think that if there is a fixed amount based on the number of people who have voted in past presidential elections that candidate knowers he can only spend that once and it does not then get to be a real spending orgy. We don't have a man we would that the tendency would be to reduce the length of a campaign the tendency will be to concentrate in certain areas and second when I by that I mean certain speeches on certain big issues the campaigns will be last along each side will have an equal opportunity to present a case to the people. One Zad won't be way out in front in and terms of mass media communication media because they have the money and the other side doesn't have an equal opportunity because they have less money. You speak of mass communication media and there was a possible question from one of the witnesses Senator Clarke of Pennsylvania who appeared before your committee

the question came up a change of FCC regulations to allow for free broadcast time. I'm very much in favor of that I think that we need to do that. This would help reduce the cost of campaigning and after Ali the television companies they are asked this is public domain there are certified to serve the public. And I think they would like to do it the reason that they cannot do it now is because the law is so written in their third or fourth party candidate could demand equal time and under the present law get it. And we ought to change the system so that we that only the major candidates be provided with time. That's what the public really want. And you know that I think the public would be better served by making a change in the Communications Law. Final question Senator George Smathers How do you feel about public financing of congressional races.

I think eventually we might come to that. I think at the present time there's no chance of passing that because I frankly some of the members of the House of Representatives and in some instances even the senators would look upon this kind of thing as promoting opposition for them south where they're so strong in their states they don't have any opposition. And if the public is going out of the Treasury they're going to be OPPOSITION FINANCE for them they know that every two years they're bound to an opposition. So they're not going to vote for that just a matter of self-preservation. Eventually I think we may come to it but I don't think we're going to be able to pass that concept. And so five the Senate and the House is going sank that was Senator George Smilers of Florida a member of the Senate Finance Committee one of the witnesses to appear before that committee was Senator James Pearson of Kansas author of a bill dealing with campaign financing. Senator Pearce and Mr. Smiley are says he would prefer a straight congressional appropriation for election financing

your bill does not provide for such doesn't. No it does not. My bill provides for a a tax credit of 50 percent. A donation up to $10 for each taxpayer are 50 percent of 20 dollars for a joint return on as an alternative to that tax credit a deduction up to $500 a tax credit you understand is his amount taken right off the amount owed is a tax a deduction is is that which is which is used to determine the. Final tax amount that the taxpayer owes. So it appears and how do you justify the use of public funds to finance a political campaign. I do it on the basis that today at the cost of seeking public office is growing in absolute and relative sense. The figures I cited today. Two hundred million dollars spent in 1064 the enormous cost

of seeking public office. Not only in the great states like California or New York where where a senatorial race involves five or six million dollars and candidate messy to be a rich man or have rich friends or rely upon special interest groups or pressure groups for financing in that sort of situation I think I think this is a dangerous thing as to the integrity of our governmental system itself. Senator there's the bill which you have introduced would apply not only for presidential elections but all the way down would it not just for federal officers and vice president president vice president senators and congressman. Would you like to see such legislation on the state level. Well I think it's a very good here it's valid that I would say that a tax deduction or a tax credit or some sort of a public financing have to be determined by the states themselves. Many states have a different tax system and a tax structure Of course I think there are some 14 states that do not have a state income

tax and so here you just got applied it back to the state to their own individual tax structure and what their own problems may be. We heard a moment ago from Senator Everett Dirksen who said this system seems a little too complicated for him that many of the people might not understand it. Well I am. I would just disagree at this extent that today we have a deduction system for the chair both religious and educational institutions people understand that on the deduction sat and on the tax credit side also I think I think there's a great awareness as to tax credits. And so this is a this is nothing new it's been done in a different Desson different FIOS in a dozen different ways and I think the public is quite familiar with it at least all the taxpaying public is. And this is precisely the area where the credit introduction would take place. You have another bill which was mentioned briefly runs very closely to this one dealing with election fraud could you explain that briefly.

No I haven't been damping actresses of course to the to the extent that we have for reporting here that that day's included. I would make reference also to the equal time provision bill which I put in for it but that's only for presidents and and vice presidential candidates. This would deal with broadcast. Yes yes equal time provision would be eliminated for the Prez to the office of president vice president but not below that and them and would provide a public exposure and a chance for the public to see both the candidates on an equal time basis without running into all of the splinter groups that have a right now to equal time in the present. Senator Pearce and your bill would provide sweeping changes in the method of reporting campaign contributions and expenditures could you explain that. Well today they and their reporting procedures are so limited that

because of the limitation of the magic Canaday can span for instance an interstate committing under the present law can spend three million dollars and yet testimony this morning on my own estimate and on the estimate that this was actually a fifty two million dollars are spent in the last presidential election the Corrupt Practices Act says that a United States senator may only spend $25000 in California New York and some other large states we know that scholars has five and six million dollars of candy from Congress and the correct Corrupt Practices Act always been $5000. Well this is absurd and because of this you have a proliferation of committees. The reporting system we provide for is one that has every committee and every candidate primary or general must make full disclosure to an agency which will make those public records. What you're saying then is these committees circumvent the law at this time. Well indeed they do they and they they're an evasion. The laws

when only one candidate can only spend. $25000 why has an administration at the national level in 1960 there were 70 national committees each Cape spent three million dollars apiece if they had not been a limitation of 3 million dollars for any Each interstate committee why then they would have been that proliferation of 70 committees and one thousand sixty and one hundred seventy one thousand sixty four. Would you say that your bill dealing with federal financing of campaigns is unprecedented in this nation. No I don't think so. It's not unprecedented in the sense that it's. That something drastically new These posts have been kicking around for years and years and as a matter of fact the real essence of the post when I made this morning was one that came from there heard report in 1962 that President Kennedy established. Do you know any other country which currently is doing this.

You know I don't. A final question after appearing before the committee how do you feel their sentiment is toward your bill. Well it's hard to tell how I am and I thought they received it very well and I and I thought from the questions and the discussion and so forth a very open mind on attempts have patted the administration back close on Senator Gore's proposal of a public appropriation by the Congress and now it stands a better chance in relation to the proposal I made that was United States senator James B Pearson of Kansas one of our guests this week on the NE our Washington forum. We wish to thank the other senators who appeared on this first part of a two part look at a unique election campaign proposal. Minority leader Everett Dirksen Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Senator George Smilers. This program was produced by the national educational radio network through the facilities of W am UFA American University Radio in Washington D.C. This is Bill Greenwood inviting

you to join us again next week when Senator James B Pearson of Kansas outlines in even greater detail his plan for federal financing of federal election campaigns. This is the national educational radio network.