his family donated over $57,000 to Democratic candidates and committees from 1973 through 1976. President Carter made Mr. Warner Ambassador to Switzerland. 33 And everyone should look closely at the growth of the political action committees (PACs). That growth has not occurred in spite of the federal election act, but because of the federal election act. A provision in the act allows corporations and unions (including government contractors) to subsidize the administrative costs of their PACs. Certainly that provision is largely responsible for the explosion of corporate PACS.34 The election act has not eliminated special-interest influence on elections. Rather, it has changed the way in which that influence is exercised. THE LAW DOES NOT OFFER GENUINE CHOICES ON PUBLIC FUNDING Although offered to the public in the guise of a choice, the check-off on the tax form does not offer a genuine choice to taxpayers. A dollar is not refunded to a person who declines to check off. Nor does that person have a chance to designate a dollar for lobbying against public funding. Nor does his "No" vote, even if part of a plurality or majority, have any chance of stopping public funding. Since all tax dollars-checked off or not checked off-go into the general treasury, part of each tax dollar goes into the presidential campaign fund. The most a "No" vote can do is to decrease the percentage of the dollar that goes to the campaign fund. The only way to ensure that none of one's tax money will go to the campaign fund is to refuse to pay taxes. Presidential candidates do not have a genuine choice on whether to accept public funding. Early in the 1976 campaign, I asked one of the Reagan aides whether his candidate would accept public subsidies. I had thought that this would be difficult for a conservative Republican who opposes so many forms of government aid. But the Reagan aide, without hesitation, answered that Reagan would take subsidies; that there was no choice. He said that if the Reagan campaign refused subsidies and raised all of its money privately, the Reagan staff would have to spend far more time on fundraising than Ford's people. And he noted that the 20% fundraising allowance was insufficient, especially since direct mail often involved costs as high as 40% of receipts. There is another strong pressure for presidential candidates to accept public funding. This is the fact that they are subjected to all of the election act's limits, whether or not they take public funds. If they refuse public funds, they must try to raise private money within the contribution limits. And they must file most of the information that a subsidized candidate must file. The "choice" presidential candidates face is one of submitting to a repressive law and receiving no benefits whatever, or submitting and receiving up to $25 million. That is not a choice at all. There are at least two ways to give voters a real choice on the tax check-off. One would be to ask each person who votes "Yes" to add a dollar to his tax payment (or to refund a dollar to everyone who votes "No"). Another would be to say that there will be no public funding unless a plurality of taxpayers vote for it by checking off. By this test, public funding would have ended a long time ago. Of 1978 tax returns processed through June 6, 1979, 25% voted "Yes" on the check-off question; 43.5% voted "No"; and 31.5% did not answer the question.35 There is an excellent way to give presidential candidates a genuine choice on public funding. You could exempt from the contribution limits and from most reporting requirements every candidate who declines public funding. You could let those who want to exchange their political liberty for money do so, but let the others go free. 33 Ibid., June 6, 1977, pp. S 8895-8896. On the issue of Carter's diplomatic appointments, see also Martin F. Herz, "Maxwell Gluck and All That," Foreign Service Journal, May, 1978, p. 19 ff.; and Roger Morris, "Diplomatic Spoils," Harper's, November, 1978, pp. 69-75. 34 James North, "The Effect: The Growth of the Special Interests," Washington Monthly, October, 1978, pp. 32-36; Edwin M. Epstein, "The Emergence of Political Action Committees" in Herbert E. Alexander, ed., Political Finance (Beverly Hills, 1979), pp. 159-197. 35 Telephone conversation of the writer with public affairs office, Internal Revenue Service, June 15, 1979. THE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE EASILY AVAILABLE INFORMATION TO VOTERS, RESEARCHERS AND PRESS The Federal Election Commission is choking on paper, groaning under the sheer volume of it. Reporters and other researchers have to wade through many pages of trivia in order to find useful information in FEC reports. And the large volume involved makes it difficult for the FEC to have available for public inspection all reports that come in just before an election. The law demands much information that is unnecessary, has no bearing on corruption, and simply adds to the volume of paper. The only parts of disclosure that bear directly on possible conflict of interest or corruption are those relating to contributions and debts. And even in those, the low thresholds for reporting are unreasonable. A threshold of $500 would be more rational. Candidates and committees operating below the $500 level should not be required to report at all. And no one should be required to register with the Commission or designate a campaign committee. That is needless paperwork. The FEC's harassment of candidates for failure to file such papers-which included harassing the late Lar ("America First") Daly on his deathbed-is inexcusable.36 Simplifying the disclosure requirements would result in reports that are far more useful to the public. And it would assure at least some privacy to small contributors and to campaign committees. There is another reason why the election act is not resulting in all of the useful disclosure its proponents promised the voters: The act's contribution limits work against its disclosure limits. For reasons given elsewhere in this statement, I believe that the contribution limits are unwise and unconstitutional. Beyond that, they really go against nature. Limiting the amounts of money a campaign may solicit is like asking a fine race horse not to run so fast, or telling a major-league baseball player to hit doubles instead of home runs. No one should be surprised when campaigns and contributors find ways around the contribution limits. Thus the Wall Street Journal in 1976 said of a major Carter contributor named Haldis Katerina (Kate) Hertzog that, "Kate Hertzog, political contributor, is five years old.” This little fat cat and her seven-year-old brother had each given $1,000 to the Carter campaign. So had their mother and father and five older Hertzog offspring. The Journal story led someone to complain to the FEC, which conducted an investigation and reached a Solomon-like decision: The Carter campaign had to refund contributions to little Kate and to other children who were seven years of age or younger; but children aged 14 or over could contribute.37 The same Journal story which reported on the Hertzog's generosity told of a sixteen-year-old in Kentucky who "says he is a true believer in Ronald Reagan, though he sounds surprised to learn that he is listed as a $1,000 contributor to his favorite candidate." The boy said, "What? Me? Political contributions? You'll have to ask my dad about that. He handles all that stuff for me. 9 38 Henry Kimelman, who served as finance chairman for Senator Frank Church's 1976 presidential campaign, remarked, "The new fat cat is the guy who can raise $10,000. He can get $1,000 each from his wife, his kids, his mistress, and his girl friend." 99 39 There are several illegal ways to evade contribution limits. I do not know to what extent they are used, but I suspect they are used widely. One way is to transfer money to someone else with the understanding that she will contribute it to a campaign. Another way is to make in-kind contributions which are not reported. The possibilities here are almost endless: Use of a personal or business telephone for long-distance calls on campaign business; use of credit cards for travel on campaign business; use of one's automobile for campaign business; donation of postage stamps; donation of office supplies or machinery. There is no way of stopping this, short of putting all campaign volunteers in a concentration camp. 36 U.S. Federal Election Commission, Matter Under Review Files, MUR 556 (78); "Perennial Candidate Lar Daly Dies at 66," Chicago Tribune, April 18 1978, pp. 1 and 10. 37 Jerry Landauer, "Kiddies Go Krazy Over Carter, Break Open Piggy Banks," Wall Street Journal, July 8, 1976, pp. 1 and 27; U.S. Federal Election Commission, Matter Under Review Files, MUR 199 (76). 38 Landauer, op. cit. 39 Quoted in Stephen Isaacs. "Fat Cat Out; Fund-Raiser is '76 Hero," Washington Post, April 16, 1976, pp. A-1 and A-6. In other words, people are going to violate a law that limits their freedom to organize politically. And they are not going to report on FEC forms that they are violating the law. We cannot have it both ways. We can either have a disclosure law that works reasonably well; or we can have a complex regulatory scheme such as the present one, which is not respected, cannot be fully enforced, and leads to widespread under-reporting and mis-reporting. For all of the reasons outlined above, I urge the Committee to recommend repeal of the Federal Election Campaign Act and to recommend replacing it with a simple disclosure law. Ralph Winter, one of the attorneys who argued Buckley v. Valeo for the plaintiffs, put the case well when he told the Supreme Court, "The greatest campaign reform law ever enacted was the First Amendment 40 Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Chairman, Senate Rules and Administration Committee, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am enclosing a copy of a letter I received from the Hon. Paul Riviere, Secretary of the State of Arkansas, advising me of his concerns regarding current FEC law which requires states to retain multi-candidate political action committee reports for ten and five years. I wonder if you would be kind enough to review and retain the Secretary's correspondence when the Committee considers this issue. Thank you for your attention to Mr. Riviere's views, as I am sure they will prove useful in your deliberations. Sincerely, Enclosure. ED BETHUNE, Member of Congress. STATE OF ARKANSAS, OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF STATE, Little Rock, Ark., June 4, 1979. Hon. ED BETHUNE, Longworth Office Building, DEAR CONGRESSMAN BETHUNE: Currently, all campaign finance reports are required to be maintained by this office for ten years except those specifically for House of Representatives candidates which may be destroyed after five years. It is my understanding that the Federal Election Commission is proposing to change this to ten years for presidential candidates, seven years for senatorial candidates and five years for House of Representatives candidates. However, the problem my office has is with multi-candidate political action committee reports. Under either the current or the proposed law, such reports will still have to be maintained for ten years. These reports which come in on a monthly basis are rarely, if ever, used. I would appreciate your consideration in proposing that multi-candidate political action committee reports be maintained no more than two years by the states. Each candidate must report his contributions from such political action committees anyway; thus, that record would not be destroyed by this proposal. Sincerely, PAUL RIVIERE. 40 U.S. Supreme Court, Transcript of Oral Arguments in Buckley v. Valeo, Nos. 75-436 and 75-437, Washington, D.C. November 10, 1975, p. 31. LOUIS C. KRAMP AND ASSOCIATES, Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, DEAR SENATOR PELL: Since leaving Congress in 1977, I have talked with thousands of persons in widely disparate audiences, who have participated in our election process. The following suggestions, to improve and simplify our Federal election procedures, were enthusiastically received. Each group urged me to transmit them to you for approval. Certainly, the proposals may engender debate and some initial wariness, especially by some narrow, special interests which may feel threatened by them. My objective is to safeguard true representative government and to simplify all the procedures so that more of the electorate will be better informed and encouraged to participate. I am convinced that the concepts are sound; but, obviously, the ideas will require honing and adaptation to legislative language and form. I am willing to debate the merits with anyone. These proposals were designed only for Congressional elections, although the ideas could apply beneficially to all elections, with few appropriate exemptions. I trust that you, or your staff, will consider these proposals and share with me your evaluations of the merits and the present political or legislative chances. Your usual splendid cooperation and accommodation will be greatly appreciated. Warm personal regards, Sincerely, Enclosure. BURT L. TALCOTT. LET'S TRY ELECTION INNOVATION-AND FORGET "REFORM" The most implicit tragedy of past Federal elections is not the large expenditure of funds, or corruption-but waste. The obscene waste of money, time and energy (by candidates and their supporters, by reporters and election officials) plus the exasperation and boredom of voters is an inexcusable calamity. Our election processes are too long and too complicated. Protracted campaigns and inordinate rules and regulations cause excessive costs, waste, voter disinterest and violations of the law. Prolonged campaigns prolong the process of healing and the resumption of civil relationships after elections. A little imagination and simpler rules could cure most of our election ills. I offer five suggestions for your study. 1. There is no need to change the terms of Federal officials or to reduce the number of elections. Elections are a unique means by which we voters may hold our politicians' "feet to the fire;" the more elections, the more responsive and representative our elected officials will be. The necessary economies can be better achieved by telescoping the periods between the primary and general elections. Our law should prohibit any Congressional primary election prior to September 15. Shorter campaigns will reduce the costs and eliminate most of the nagging faults of our present election proc esses. Many foreign countries conduct satisfactory elections in 35 to 40 days. Our superior transportation, data processing and communications facilities enable us to perform better in less time. If a candidate cannot "sell" his candidacy in 45 days, he should abandon his political ambitions. 2. The bookkeeping, reporting and auditing of campaign funds are undesirable chores that devour time and resources of political committees and volunteers. Most volunteers now decline to serve as campaign chairman or treasurer because of the latent, but dreaded, exposure to criminal liability. The publication of campaign contributions and expenditures is useful only if fully and promptly reported to the electorate. To satisfy all interests, all campaign funds should be deposited with a central government office for counting and reporting. The "contribution counting" office, similar to the present "vote counting" office, would certify all contribution information and make daily reports to the public on a prescribed form. The official records and reports of all candidates would then be uniform, reliable and timely. The function and costs of counting and certifying campaign contributions should be borne by the government-just as the function and costs of counting and certifying votes are now borne by the government. Prosecutions for record-keeping violations and endless investigations would be almost wholly eliminated. The auditing of President Carter's campaign funds, which has required more than two years under the current procedure, could be accomplished in two days under my suggestion. Under my plan, volunteer workers would be relieved of the anxiety and burden of massive record-keeping and reporting requirements; and freed for real, productive advocacy. 3. All candidates should be permitted only one campaign committee, one campaign fund and one bank account so that all funds, receipts and payments could be quickly traceable. All campaign disbursements should be made by check onlyand the details reported regularly. 4. All ballots should permit a line for "none of the above." This added option would tend to force political parties to field satisfactory candidates. A "write-in" option is usually worthless. A voter should not be restricted to the "lesser of two evils;" the voter should be allowed to positively reject all candidates which they consider unworthy. 5. Most importantly, all campaign contributions from persons residing outside an electoral district should be prohibited. For good reasons, we now scrupulously prohibit all persons residing outside an electoral district from voting in that district. Why then, pray tell, should we permit persons from outside that electoral district (often unknown to the voters of that district) to influence, distort or subvert that vote with huge influxes of money contributions. True "repersentative democracy" should be of the people, for the people, by the people and from the people of a particular district. Outside campaign contributions debase our representative form of government. If our "right of choice" is to be based on "candidate qualification" rather than the "highest media hype" or the "highest bid" of wealthy foreign interests, we must restrict outside influences-good and evil. Why should New York bankers, Houston oil tycoons, Chicago doctors, Washington "preservationists" or Memphis "right-to-lifers" elect or defeat a Congressman from the fourth district of Nebraska or a Senator from South Dakota? If we permit "at large" contributions and influences, we should logically permit "at large" voting. A local citizen cannot make his or her precious vote count if it is distorted or diluted by outside influences. The sanctity of true representative government must be safeguarded during, and by, the election processes. The sterile publication of lists of contributions from unfamiliar sources from far away places cannot be readily evaluated by the electorate-sometimes not until after election day. On the other hand, an unusual contribution by an unseemly local citizen would be quickly understood by the voters. Actually, with a prohibition against outside contributions, we could rescind most limitations on receipts and expenditures because, with full disclosure of receipts and expenditures from citizens of the particular election district, unseemly contributions, in amount or character, would discredit themselves. If, in the public interest, we can limit the persons who can vote to those who reside within the electoral district, we should, likewise, be able to limit those who can influence that vote without impinging on some perceived indirect right of "free speech." The whole election process would be simpler, shorter, more open, more democratic, more equitable and less expensive. The quality of the campaigns would be far superior because much of the time, money and energy now devoured in endless record-keeping and reporting could be devoted to the exposition of the issues and the qualifications of the candidates. It is futile, if not disasterous, to leave "election reform" to the "old Guard," in and out of the Congress, who offer no innovation and simply try again and again to patch up our outmoded, cumbersome and wasteful campaign processes. |