Advocates; Should The Federal Government Subsidize Political Campaigns and Limit Individual Contributions? ; 414

since some of you are smiling. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Advocates, the PBS Fight of the Week. Tonight's debate is coming to you from Boston's historic Fanuel Hall.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I have your attention please? Moderator Evans Sumergin is just called tonight's meeting to order. Good evening and welcome to the Advocates. Tonight's program focuses on the role that money plays or should play in political campaigns. And specifically our question is this. Should the federal government subsidize political campaigns and limit individual contributions? Advocate Allard Lowenstein says yes. Mr. Lowenstein? I think everyone knows that at the heart of democracy are elections. And if elections become corrupted then democracy is in bad shape. Tonight to discuss two major efforts to change the corruption that everyone now realizes has eaten away at our democracy. We have two of the most committed fighters in Congress for fair elections. Two of the most honest men there. Congressman Anderson of Illinois and Senator Biden of Delaware. Thank you. Advocate Tom Bourdau says no. Mr. Bourdau.

Any proposal to subsidize campaigns and limit contributions, and there are many such bills lurking in the wings of Congress, are not only ineffective but dangerous. To support the structure of our political process, I have with me tonight George Webster, a Washington attorney who represents a trade in business associations and David Wilson, a columnist for the Boston Globe. Thank you gentlemen. Now tonight we welcome two new advocates. Allard Lowenstein is an attorney from New York who served one term as a congressman from Long Island District from 1968 to 1970. He is now a member of the Democratic National Committee. And Thomas Bourdau is an attorney from Mississippi and was president of that state's Defense Lawyers Association. He is a member of the American College of Trial Lawyers. We'll be back to these gentlemen for their cases in a moment, but first this word of background on tonight's question.

Perhaps more than any election campaign in the history of our democracy, the 1972 presidential election and Watergate-related scandals have raised concern over how we elect public officials. Since then more than 70 bills have been introduced in Congress to reform various aspects of election procedures. These bills raise several essential questions. Should the federal government subsidize in full or in part the costs of campaigns for federal office? Should private contributions be abolished or limited? And should there be an absolute ceiling on campaign expenditures? Tonight our debatable focus on the principles underlying one of these bills introduced by Congressman Morris Udall of Arizona and John Anderson of Illinois. It provides a limitation on contributions by individuals or organizations, $1,000 for any congressional or Senate race, and $2,500 for a presidential campaign. There would be no limit, however, on the total amount any candidate could spend.

This Anderson Udall bill calls for federal subsidy using taxpayers' money to match contributions of up to $100. It would be limited, however, to a sum of 10 cents per eligible voter for every candidate in any election year. The merits of these principles, limitations on individual contributions, and a partial government subsidy are what we will be concerned with tonight. Current laws governing elections prevent unions or corporations from contributing to campaigns, although officers are allowed to give in their own name. Current laws also place a limit on how much candidates can spend for television or newspaper advertising, a limit on how much they or their families can contribute, and they require disclosure of contributions over $100. And now to the cases. Mr. Lohanstein, why should the federal government subsidize political campaigns and limit individual contributions? If you were to set out to create a country in which you would have one man vote, free speech, guaranteed everybody, and then you'd have candidacies in which one side would be able to spend $22 million in the other side of half a million dollars. You'd realize that that kind of democracy was a hoax. Nobody would even argue about it.

Yet those instances in our society have become frequent, and the fact that they don't always occur doesn't mean that they're right when they do occur. What we're proposing tonight is that there be a way in which everybody, even if they're not born rich, have a fair chance to be elected to public office. Today in the United States, 90% of the political contributions come from 1% of the population. And what we hope we can do is to amend the law so that there will be a guarantee that people will have access to funds so they can run if they have enough support to merit it. And then to put a limit on how much any one individual can give so nobody can purchase through wealth and undo share in the decision making process. To start the testimony for the evening, I call Senator Biden of Delaware. Senator Biden, welcome to the advocates. Thank you for being here. Senator Biden, it's nice to have you here. As the youngest member of the Senate, the one therefore who may expect the longest career there, I wonder if you'd say to us since it's clear that you're not corrupt and you got elected. Why should people think that the system produces corrupt results when there you are?

Well, I'm not sure you should assume I'm not corrupt, but I'm thank you for that, though. The system does produce corruption, and I think implicit in the system is corruption. When, in fact, whether or not you can run for public office and it costs a great deal of money to run for the United States Senate even with a small state like Delaware, you have to go to those people who have money, and they always want something. Well, I wonder whether you would feel that there's some virtue enforcing candidates to go out and try to raise money. I've heard people, probably people who didn't run for office, say that it's uplifting to go out and try to get money. Do you think that there's something unuplifting about putting a limit to how much you can ask one man to give you? I think it's the most degrading experience in the world I have to go out and ask for money, because you know that unless you accidentally agree with the position taken by the person or group that has the money, that you run the risk of deciding whether or not you're going to prostitute yourself to give the answer you know they want to hear in order to get funded to run for that office. And it's coincidental in many instances when in fact you happen to agree with where they are. And you run the risk by the way of rationalizing of saying well if I compromise on this one, give them one, I get 90% of what I want and I don't have to give in too much.

So you feel it's a difficult temptation not only for the candidate, not only for the people who give the money but for the people trying to raise it. No, we were told that we politicians as the young kids say rip off the American public. I think the American public in a way rips off we politicians by forcing us to run the way they do. To raise $300,000 is no mean feat. And unless you happen to be some sort of anomaly like myself being a 29 year old candidate and can attract some attention behind your own state, it's very difficult to raise that money from a large group of people. So some people who agree with the problem or our definition of the problem turn around and say you just have full disclosure that would solve it. Do you think that would have a major effect on the problems you're describing? I think full disclosure is essential. We have that now allegedly. But that's not going to get to the question of how you have to raise the money and the influence of those who come forward with the money, whether they be a labor union or a corporate executive. So if we put a limit on what individuals can give and if we have public assistance for candidates, do you think that would work as some have suggested to make incumbents even more powerful that there'd be no way then the challengers could succeed?

No, I don't, but I do think you run the risk in limiting the amount that can be spent of continuing to tyranny the incumbent. For example, I'm on this show for one reason. It's an incumbent United States senator where this election year this would be allegedly votes for me back home. A challenger of mine would have to pay a great deal of money to get this kind of TV time. We have a lot going for us when we're incumbents and we use it. Well, but this process that we're suggesting tonight in your view would not make it more difficult for people to challenge incumbent. Absolutely not. As long as you have a bill like the Anderson bill, which doesn't limit the amount that can be spent, but limits the amount that an individual can contribute. And that way you further broaden the process, further broaden the participation because why does a guy want to give $50 when he knows climate stone is giving $7 million? What influences his $50 going to have? Now, you might say what makes it clear that a person is more effective at raising funds if he happens to know one man who can give him a million while someone else may know 100 who can give 100 each.

That problem of access to money rich people tend to know rich people. And those who aren't rich tend to move towards people who have ideas that can raise a lot of money. And then the present atmosphere would you say that with Watergate that we're reacting hysterically to this problem or make this very brief? I don't think so at all. I think this is the single most important issue that can be resolved by this Congress. Let's go to Mr. Bordeaux. I think he's going to ask you some questions. Senator, I noticed you said that it was a grating to glad and raise money. Does this mean that you are not in favor of the Anderson bill, which does permit contributions up to $1,000? No, it doesn't. I think it's a grating to have to go out and know that that is your only source of money. When the man you're talking to, for example, knows that, in fact, he's the only means by which you can even begin to run for office. Well, are you in favor of the Anderson bill? Yes, I am in favor of the Anderson bill.

All right. Now, let me ask you this question. The Anderson bill provides $1,000 limitation on contributions. Are you saying that going out and asking for $1,500 is the grating? No, I think you missed the pointer. I thought I haven't made the point properly. If, in fact, you know that the only way you can raise any money to get to run for public office is to go to vested interest groups. Then, in fact, you're put in the position that you have to begin to wonder whether or not you prostitute the ideas that you have about government in order to get the money to begin to run. Of course, you've had recent experience with this having been elected in 1972. That's correct. I believe you just said that your campaign cost some $300,000. $276,000. All right. Say, and you raise that money by public contributions, did you not? That's correct. And you raise that money and a raise against an incumbent, did you not? That's correct. Yes. And, son, at the time, I'm sure that you would agree that your service in the Senate, up to this point, has not reflected any particular concern for the larger contributors. Well, the fortunate thing is I didn't have many larger contributors. And the only reason, see, I went to the big guys for the money.

I was ready to prostitute myself in the manner in which I talk about it. But what happened was they said, come back when you're 40, son. And so I had to go out. Well, I had to go to a number of small contributors. Well, I think we're all great percentage. You didn't take no for an answer. Now, in this Anderson bill, there's a provision for the federal government to match dollar for dollar contributions from small contributions, up to $100. Is that correct? I believe so. So that means that federal taxed money is are going to be used in political campaigns in Delaware or Illinois or Mississippi or wherever, is that correct? That's correct. Now, Senator, isn't it the history of this country that federal control follows federal money? And a recent example, didn't the president aside? It was expedient to have a 55 mile an hour speed limit on all the highways. And didn't he get the Congress to pass a bill that says to a state you get no more federal money unless you pass a 55 mile an hour speed limit? Can't blame it all on the president, but yes, he did.

Well, but in the fact is that in any instance, where federal money goes into any given area, there is federal control as to how that money is going to be spent. And there's federal control right now, sir, and exactly how the money can be spent. What manner in which it can be raised? The only question is whether or not there will be taxpayers money involved directly. Who is going to exercise the control over the spending of this taxpayer's money? The control will be exercised by, as you point out, the federal government in terms of whether or not the means of distribution, in terms of how it can be spent, whether or not you can buy a balloon or a billboard with that money. There is no control in this legislation or any that I've been wearing. That is correct, but doesn't history tell us that ultimately that will be that control? Well, that sort of smacks the argument always heard about civil rights. You know, once we get into that field, we're, you know, the foot in the door argument that you're making applies just about every means of legislation, every particular piece of legislation we pass. When I said I have been in political campaigns, but the few I have been in, there's always somebody that comes up with what I call a damn food idea.

Now, if you've got a, you're going to have any protection in these bills against the damn food factor? No, I think that's human nature. There are a lot of damn fools in the Congress and the Senate and those who want to get there, but there's no way you can legislate against that. Right. But do you think in the long run that the American people are going to put up with their money being squandered on all sorts of wild political notions? The question is, how long is the American public going to put up with a small group of men and organizations determining the political process by deciding who can run and who can run? But, but Senate, aren't you a living example? I am an anachronist. Wait, I am a 29-year-old oddball. The only reason I was able to raise the money is I was able to have a national constituency to run for office. Because I was 20 now, I'm like the token black or the token woman. I was the token young person.

We're talking about this national, this national constituency. Some of the money that we're not an announcement for office. I'm going to have you interrupt here. Let's go back to Mr. Lowenstein for a question. I just want to Mr. Bordeaux seems worried about that $1,000 limit. If Mr. Bordeaux would agree to support our principle, would you agree to go to a $1,500 limit? I'd agree to go to a $3,000 limit, which is a bill that I, in fact, co-sponsored. When I said I'd support Congressman Anderson's bill, I do. It's better than what we have now. I'd like to see some slight amendments to it, but I think the principle has to be adopted. All right. Let's come back to you, Mr. Bordeaux. Senator, I'll do some first amendment problems in telling somebody that you can't give, but $1,000 still can. Quite frankly, I think there are, but we've already in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act broached that question. And if, in fact, we agree that it's legal to do what we're doing now, and that is not violate the First Amendment, it seems to me this is a natural transition. And if we haven't violated them now, I don't think we're violating them with this legislation. Well, let's see if I understand you as an example of the First Amendment question. If, let's say, I give $1,000 to a candidate of my choice, I take it out limited under this bill from giving any more.

Is that right? That would be correct. And if something happened during the campaign that I wanted to speak out on and spend some money to put a newspaper rad in, I couldn't do that, isn't that right? That is correct. And I take it. That's what you mean, isn't it, by the restraint? Absolutely. There are similar restraints that exist now, though, in terms of how we can spend our money. For example, we say, now you can only spend up to a certain percentage on 10% per capita on media, 6% of that on television. I mean, we've already restricted it in that regard. But there are no statutory restraints on the amount of giving by an individual at this time. No, there are not, but I fail to see the distinction between the amount and the means, but there may be. Senator Biden, I want to thank you very much for being with us tonight. Thank you for having me. I call now Congressman Anderson of Illinois, chairman of the House Republican Conference.

Congressman, welcome to the advocates. Thank you. This is probably the grandest coalition since the Christian Democrats and Socialists were together in bond. I'm so glad that you're here, Congressman Anderson, because you're recognized as one of the great spokesmen for fiscal conservatism in the House representatives. How come you feel it's worth using taxpayers' money to finance public campaigns? Well, actually, Mr. Lohanstein, we're talking about a relatively small amount of money. Based on 1972 figures, the average subsidy under my bill would be about $25,000 in the case of a congressional campaign. There were about 850 serious candidates for the Congress in 1972. That means we're talking about $21 million to partially subsidize the campaigns for Congress in this country. Now, if you throw in the Senate campaigns and the presidential race, you might get up to an overall figure of about $125 million. That's far less than the advertising budget for almost any major corporation in this country. We're talking about a very small sum in relation to the very important job that we've got to do, namely to try to cleanse the political process of the influence of too much money and big money coming from special interest groups.

But aren't you worried about what Mr. Bordeaux calls the damn fool factor that every loose nut in the country would start running for office to get his share of the loot? Well, in the first place, of course, our bill makes some provision for this by providing for a threshold amount. A candidate would have to raise $1,000 on his own. As a candidate for Congress, he would have to raise $1,000 on his own before he could begin to match from this federal matching entitlement fund. So I think this is going to screen out some of the obvious kooks who might otherwise be tempted to run just to see whether they could get some federal money. But, you know, I'm not nearly as alarmed about the kooks and the nuts who might be enticed into becoming a part of the political process as I am about the present situation. The fact that I think the evidence is overwhelming that there is corruption in the political process when we leave candidates at the mercy of a system where it's big money that speaks. Well, is there a problem from your point of view that rich people would be denied their right to contribute all the money they want?

Do you think that's a violation of some sound conservative doctrine that we ought to be worried about? Well, frankly, I don't think that rich people ought to have a disproportionate voice in the political process, merely because a man was born wealthy or was able to make a fortune doesn't mean that he ought to be able to that extent have a greater voice in the election of candidates. Any more than when we decided a few years ago on the one man won vote principle that we don't want weighted voting in this country. Every man's vote ought to be entitled at the same weight. I think the same principle applies in the field of the financing of political campaigns. Of course, Vice President Agno, at least in his post-Felonius period, has come to that conclusion also. So maybe it isn't an ideological question. I wonder if you've developed for a moment the problem that may arise if funding is given on a basis that is open to everybody in terms of whether that means that incumbents will in fact gain great advantages. Senator Biden talked about that, but you're an expert also in a district where there's not been too much of a competition for you. What are your experiences along those lines? Well, quite to the contrary, I think under the present system we have what might be called an incumbent security system.

Any analysis of recent elections will show that about 93 percent of the members of Congress were reelected. In 1972, over 90 percent of the incumbents were reelected. Over half of the members of Congress were reelected by margins of more than 60 percent of the vote. There were 12 percent of the contests in this country where they didn't even slate an opposition. I think incumbents do have an overwhelming advantage today. And the only way to redress that imbalance, to give the challenger a chance, to make our elections more competitive, is I think to try a mixed system of public and private finance, to let that fellow who wants to challenge an incumbent, go out and raise his money in small amounts of $100 or less, and then go to a federal fund, have that matched by an equal amount. Then I think he has some crack at the political process that today he's been denying. All right. Thanks, Mr. Loanstein. Let's go now to Mr. Bordeaux. Congressman Anderson, you're not really advocating that all the rascals be turned out in 1977 before are you?

Well, I'd like to make at least one exception to that general rule myself. No, I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with being an incumbent. I'm not suggesting that all incumbents are venal. I do think that given the statistics that I quoted to Mr. Loanstein, that our political process today is really less than as competitive as it should be. And the purpose of your bill is to try to equalize things. Is that not correct? I think it would serve partially, I think, not completely. There are some advantages of incumbency as Mr. Senator Biden pointed out that are there, like Mount Everest, they're there, they can't be removed. I don't think you're ever going to completely get a situation where everybody is on the identical plane. And the way you are going to try to equalize things is by providing some matching funds from the federal government for people who get out and raise $100 from the fair source. Yes, that's correct. I believe you already said that it's easier for an incumbent to raise money. Isn't that true? That's one of the advantages he has. I think that to some extent that is true. So they're going to be more matching funds available to that incumbent than it would be to the challenge here? No, I don't think so for this reason, that I think that the advantage that the incumbent enjoys in raising funds all too often comes from special interest groups who contribute more than $100, who may contribute $1,000 or more.

It's the challenge. If they contribute more than $1,000, it would be a crook under this bill, won't it? He would be violating the limits of the bill, that's true. But to go back to my point, if I may, Mr. Boudreau, I think that the challenger, the fellow who's less known in the district, who hasn't served the district and therefore built up the whole network of contacts that the incumbent has, he to a greater extent, I think, is going to be able to interest the relatively small contributor in putting some money on his candidacy and promoting his cause. So I think that although there is some imbalance inevitably, and I wouldn't deny that. I think that under my bill, the bill that Congressman Udall and I and 140 others of co-sponsored in the House, that challenger would have a better chance than he has today. But there's nothing in the bill that's going to give that challenger more money to offset some of these built-in advantages that incumbent has, is there? I'm not sure that I read your question entirely accurately, I can only repeat that there is nothing that to me make myself clear.

There's nothing in the bill that says that a challenger is going to get $200 for every $100. No, he would be limited to the same matching formula that the incumbent would have. Now Congressman Anderson, your theory is that by limiting contributions and by providing this federal subsidy that you are really going to get more folks interested in the political process, is that not true? Well, the statistics I think show that only about 6% of the American people today ever donate to a political campaign, whereas about 35% of them would give if they were asked. The purpose is to attract more people to the political game. And I think that this would provide the incentive, if a candidate knew that he could have those small contributions of $100 or less matched from a federal fund, he would have added incentive to go out and raise that money from more people in small amounts, thereby involving a greater number of people in the political process. But Congressman, isn't it true that in Puerto Rico, for example, where they have tried the full subsidy of elections, that there's been a decrease in citizen participation rather than an increase?

That could well be, and I am not for total public financing of political campaigns. I think to totally divorce the candidate from the necessity of going out to the grassroots and interesting people in his campaign to the point that their willing to contribute money would be bad. I'm not advocating total public financing, rather what I would describe as a judicious blend or mix of public and private money. But Congressman, isn't it true that if we take the first bite of the apple, we are ultimately going to eat the whole thing? Well, I suppose your question assumes that if we go to this system that ultimately will be total public financing. I don't think that sort of like being a little bit pregnant. Well, I don't think that totally follows at all. And I think the analogy is not particularly apropos. And I just believe that this system would involve more people, give the challenger a better chance, and be far more satisfactory than the present system, which I think has been proven to be corrupt. Let me ask your question, Congressman. In the bill, there are ceilings of $2,500 for presidential campaigns and 1,000 for congressional campaigns, isn't that right?

Yes. What was the reason for choosing those figures rather than something else? Well, frankly, any limitations, I suppose, have a tendency to be somewhat arbitrary. And the senator Biden said, I'm not going to be absolutely rigid about that. If somebody wants to amend that and make it a somewhat higher figure, I suppose that I would agree. But the fact is, in the last campaign, we had contributions ranging up to a million dollars. I think I'm correct, that at least one person gave a million dollars. I'm not suggesting that he did that with any penal motives. But I think inevitably the taint of suspicion has to attach itself to a gift of that size. That that person somehow is going to have a disproportionate influence on the political process. Let's go back, excuse me, let's go back to Mr. Lohanstein. The Congressman isn't the central point of the matching proposal that the federal government only matches contributions up to $100, which means that small contributions double and larger ones don't. Exactly. There is no matching for any contribution over $100.

All right, Mr. Boydell. You mentioned something about a million dollar contribution. Under a full and complete disclosure program, the voters would know that this candidate got a million dollars from somebody, wouldn't it? Theoretically, that's true. Unfortunately, however, under the present campaign finance act that we passed in 1971 became effective April 7th of 1972, there are literally tons, I suppose, of those reports lodged in the clerk's office, the Secretary of the Senate's office, and they really don't have the kind of expertise or the kind of experience to deal with those reports and get that information out to the public. So I don't think that just reporting things is enough. I think we've got to have an absolute limit. That bill could be amended to make the reporting more specific and more definite, couldn't it? And then, Congresswoman, once that reporting is made full and complete, isn't the right of every man to vote for the guy that takes a million dollars if he wants to? No, I don't think so. I think again that to give any person that disproportionate degree of influence, because you'll never convince me, and I'm a politician, have been for 14 years, you're never going to convince me that a politician isn't going to listen a little bit more closely, a little bit more attentively, to the voice of that person who's given a million dollars and somebody who's given a very innocuous sum.

All right, Congresswoman, I want to thank you very much for being with us tonight. I think the simple truth is that the fundamental corruption that we're dealing with is not even touched by disclosure, because the fundamental corruption has to do with the fact that if you want to run for office and you're not rich, with costs, souring, with population, you can't do it. And therefore, you eliminate as candidates, an enormous number of very qualified people if you don't make public funding possible as part of the process of running for office. And so I hope that we understand that unless we substitute for our national credo of one man, one vote, a notion of one dollar, one vote, we better get around to doing some public funding. Thank you. Those of you in our audience who may have joined us late, Mr. Lohanstein and his witnesses have just presented the case in favor of the federal government subsidizing political campaigns and limiting individual contributions. And now for the case against, Mr. Bordeaux, the floor is yours.

And gentlemen, we contend that tonight's proposal is both ineffective and dangerous. And we agree that there is a crisis of confidence in our political process. People are appalled at what they've been seeing and hearing, and they're fearful of what they're going to be exposed to next. Something must be done to restore confidence, to stir the voters out of their apathy and their indifference that we all sense today. But the trouble with Mr. Lohanstein's approach is that he doesn't really reach the real problems. Instead, subsidizing a campaign with tax dollars attacks the various structure of our political process. The idea of limiting campaign contributions makes the outrageous assumption that there is a price tag on corruption. And it will certainly make worse some of the problems it seeks to correct. These problems are real enough. There are people in and out of government who are dishonest. They're prosecuted and convicted. There are illegal and secret contributions. Let's expose them. But let us not abandon confidence in the American people to make sound decisions when they have the facts.

We all have the right to express ourselves politically within the law to any degree that we choose. We have the right also to resist supporting with our tax dollars the candidacies of people that we don't agree with. To speak to the real problems of money and politics, I call Mr. George Webster. Mr. Webster, welcome to the advocates. Mr. Webster is a practicing attorney in Washington, DC. He represents minute-traded business associations in their dealings with government. Mr. Webster, the allegation has been made by the proponents of the Anderson bill. The special interest groups get things done in Washington by making contribution of doing campaigns. You've been there for a long time representing various groups. Tell us how you do get things done in Washington.

Mr. Bordeaux, let me say this. Making contributions is not the way to get things done in Washington. I've watched it for over 20 years in business and professional groups, unions. They get things done by doing their homework. What do you mean by homework? It means they do the research, they get the economists, the accountants, the lawyers, the people from business or unions or whatever they want, and they make the case just like you do before a judge done in Mississippi. It's a matter of persuasion. That's the way things are done in Washington. You'll have to admit, of course, that we do have a problem, a crisis of confidence in our government, and the integrity of the people that we send to Washington. Yes, sir. I think that's correct. What are we going to do about it? I think there's several things. One is not to adopt what I consider a fake bill, because this bill would lead you to believe that it would help clean things up and won't do anything like that. The way to get things done, I was amazed also that a man that I went to law school with with the head of the Watergate Committee, Archibald Cox, didn't prosecute some of those people in Washington that made the corporate contributions. How long have corporate contributions been illegal?

Since 1907, and there's not been one person that's ever gone to jail for violating that provision, so if you had some people who were tough and would go down there and prosecute, instead of going down there and making speeches, you'd be a lot better off. What about full disclosure? Full disclosure is something I think that does a lot, and I think that if you really have full disclosure, that that would go a long way towards making honesty and elections. And I heard Congressman Anderson say that we didn't really have full disclosure because you'd have to go dig through all those papers. I've read The New York Times very carefully, and the Washington Post and the Washington Star doing the last couple of years, and they have guys down there every day, the General Accounting Office going through those documents, and if you read those papers carefully, you'll find it's all been reported right in the press. It's also been said that we need to get government money into these problems and these campaigns so that the people who don't have money will still have an opportunity to offer themselves for office. What do you say about that? Oh, I don't think that makes any difference. Most of the people in public life, they start out without a nickel. They start out like all of them. I'm a lawyer. I started out with nothing. I've had to work my way through school, went to law school. I'm like you, I didn't get clients when I started working, but eventually you have to build yourself up.

Fortunately, Senator Biden got to be a Senator at 29. That's unusual. But ordinary, the guy who's successful in politics and business and any profession, it takes a long time. But if you look at the records of almost everybody in Congress or in business today, somebody that really amounted to something, they started out with nothing. And that's the way that the American dream is. Well, it was to be a chief, you first got to be an Indian. That's right. And maybe they don't want to put in the 10 years. But most of us have had to put in 10 or 20. Now, Mr. Webster, this bill says to you and me that we can't make a contribution of more than $1,000 in any one year. Suppose I went down the bank and borrowed $1,500 to help out a friend of mine get elected. I'd get broke, wouldn't I? That's right, under that bill, if it passed. Are there any constitutional questions involved in that? Yes, I think Senator Biden is a very fine man. But he obviously hadn't been reading the cases in the last couple of years. He's been in the Senate. There's a case now pending in the United States Supreme Court in which the Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., United States Court of Appeals,

held that there are many first amendment violations in the Federal Election campaign act of 1971, passed by Mr. Anderson and his colleagues, and that the bill is essentially unconstitutional. That's now, that's the American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Times, both argue that the bill is unconstitutional in its main aspects. If you read the cases through the years, you will find, and who knows what the Supreme Court will eventually decide. But you will find a lot in those cases, which indicates that any restraint on freedom of speech in this country is going to be stopped. And I'm frankly shocked, and particularly here in Faniel Hall, that somebody would suggest that we're going to start down that terrible road of having a restraint on freedom of speech. Sounds formidable. Let's go to Mr. Lowenstein, I think he wants to ask us a question. I don't want to get on the sidetrack, but was I dreaming that Mr. Cox was fired by President Nixon, whom he raised funds? Was that something that was not, in fact, occurring in your mind? He should have prosecuted before he was fired? I restricted my comments to the fact that there were a number of people that Mr. Cox apparently found who had made corporate contributions, and apparently they started cutting a deal with all those guys, so that only the corporation would be penalized.

I think that's why he was fired, was he was moving into that? Any case- I wonder why you think Mr. Vesco contributed his suitcases of $100 bills, was he afflicted with a Santa Claus streak? Was he so generous with his private means that he wanted to give Nixon money, even though he wanted no influence? I think people outside of Washington have a strange concept of what goes on there. As I said, I just think things go on. I think what Mr. Vesco thought he was buying was influence, what he was really buying was a one-way ticket to jail. I say, what about Mrs. Farcus, when she gave her $300,000 after the campaign and ended up in Luxembourg? She wasn't purchasing anything with that $300,000? All I know is, if you pay $300,000 to be an ambassador, there's something called the United States Senate, and if you have to disclose that contribution and they're willing to still give you the job, that means the Senate must decide that you're qualified. In other words, when the milk prices go up and the milk lobby pledges money and the President and Secretary of Agriculture sit there and agree to raise price supports, we're supposed to say, well, that's none of our business, the Senate can handle it. Why can't we have a law that says that there's no temptation? Why put a cat in charge of guarding milk? Why don't you simply say?

There's not going to be a time when people can purchase influence. Why put that temptation there? Just say, no, you can't do that. Your limited contribution is this. How does that in fringe on First Amendment rights? In the first place, there's been no showing it I've seen or finding that that contribution solved that problem of the milk price. One way to solve that is to do it with price supports, and you wouldn't have the problem. That's one way to go ahead. She'll tell that to the President you can't pay in for. I'm simply saying that when the President raises price supports on milk products and gets contributions, and the ordinary citizen pays three cents more bottle of milk, I think he's paying more that way than he'd be paying if we financed out of public funds the campaign of all candidates equally. Instead of having government intervene on one side in the campaign, namely to keep itself in office, what's wrong with having government intervene impartially for all candidates who meet certain minimum standards? Why doesn't that meet the First Amendment requirements? Well, as I've said, there are a number of cases which hold that it's a violation. If I want to go spend $10,000 on election or you do, and you probably spent $10,000 on election, and if there's any restraint on that, it's a violation of our freedom of speech. That's a very bad road to start down, even to restrict it to $2,000 or $2,500. We're starting down that road, and you'll be ended up in socialization or still worse.

And Russia, you can't give a campaign contribution. And that's between here and there. Nixon Goodie gave him quarter of our grain supply. I'd have to price a week to pay for it. Well, all I know about it is that at this point, there's a very real desire on the part of the American people to stop influence peddling and purchasing in government. You raise First Amendment objections, which I'm trying to understand. You say there's a court, a case. There is a case, but the case hangs on vagueness. What that means is you make the law less vague. It doesn't mean you abandon the principle of trying to stop corporations and wealthy individuals from using their extra resources to purchase or try to purchase influence at the cost of the ordinary citizen. What's wrong with that on First Amendment? Isn't the First Amendment strangeness? But there are many cases. There are many cases that hold its evaluation in the First Amendment. But let me go back to what I originally said. Let me ask you that as a violation lawyer, I've watched for 22 years. Many things be done in Washington. And the way you get something done is the way most good lawyers, the most good congressman, most good senators do it. They listen to the arguments, most good judges. They're a lot of crooked judges. But most good guys will sit down and listen to those arguments.

If you want something done in Washington today, the big corporations by and large hire good people to go do it, and they do it on the marriage. Why should they be opposed to preventing them from trying other procedures? The President of American Airlines said he was intimidated in giving that money to Nixon. Why is it wrong to prevent the President? That was his excuse for doing a criminal act for which he probably should have been sent to jail for. Do you want to keep the law that says corporations can't contribute and labor unions can't contribute funds? Corporations can't contribute funds, but labor unions can, of course, through their members. Do you want to keep the law that prohibits labor unions and corporations from contributing campaign funds, or do you want to repeal that law too? No, corporations are not individuals and are not entitled to that. Then, of course, the amendment, as you well know. If corporations shouldn't be allowed to contribute, why shouldn't there be a similar limit so that officers and corporations can't contribute and then get bonuses to get the money back that they gave to avoid that law? Why can't we close that loophole? If that's what they do, then they commit an illegal act, because that's a corporate contribution, and people have been sent off to jail for that one. Because that itself is an illegal act. If you can prove that's the reason they got the bonus.

But if you're prepared to accept the fact that there can be a limit on contributions, why can't you see that if there's merit to limiting it further, the first amendment doesn't get violated to do that? Well, as you brought up, as you brought up, the first amendment doesn't apply to corporations. That's very easy. It does apply to individuals, and as you said, I'm shocked. All right. Let's go back to Mr. Bordeaux. Mr. Webster, the truth of the matter is that if these large contributions that Mr. Lowenstein has been talking about, were immediately announced, and the public knew about them, they wouldn't be given in the first place would be. I think that's probably true. Most of those contributions, if not all. All right. Let's go back to Mr. Lowenstein. I'm just curious, if we could stop influence purchasing and peddling, since you say that good corporations don't want to do it that way anyway, why is it against the interests of free speech or corporate influences to stop them from doing what good ones wouldn't do to begin with? Because if Mr. Anderson can have a bill, which says I can give $1,000 this year, you can have an amendment next year, which knocks it down to $50. Eventually, it's at zero, and the whole government machinery then becomes in charge of it, and I can assure you, if Mr. Anderson's bill passes, that I, as a lawyer, can go in there and tie up anybody's government money because of violations, we can get injunctions.

I've been down that very carefully, and we can top anybody's money so that he would have been elected or defeated two years before the court find a size, whether or not he's entitled to the money. That's one main problem on that bill. Mr. Webs, let me ask you a question. Do you think it's a good thing or a bad thing that a wealthy person can give $5 million to a candidate in his choice, why most people can't even approach that? Well, I think again, you are back to the matter of free speech, but to address that directly, I see nothing wrong with that because it depends on the point in life. Somebody who is the president of our court, for instance, is a wealthy man today, and he's story out with nothing. If you talked to him 25 years ago, he gave me nothing today and gave you a lot of money. Should there then be a limit on inherited wealth? Wait a minute, Mr. Loenstein. I'm sorry, we don't have any more time, Mr. Webs, thank you very much for being with us today. Thank you. Mr. Bourdau?

I call as my next witness, David Wilson. Mr. Wilson, welcome to the advocates. Mr. Wilson is a columnist with the Boston Globe. Tell me, Mr. Wilson, why do you see and think that so many distinguished people, authorities in both parties, taking a stand in favor of public financing elections without tax money? Well, I think when you have a question like that, you have to approach it from the old Kui Bono point of view. Who benefits from this being? The fact of matter is that Mr. Loenstein suggests there's something inherently pure about public money and something inherently corrupt and dirty about private money. I submit that's not necessarily the case. Rich people disagree diametrically about the purpose in which they wish to place their financial contributions. Now, public interest groups like Common Cores and the Center for the Funding of Political Financing or whatever that outfit is in Washington, they benefit. Contributors benefit, private contributors benefit from public funding because they don't have to make the contributions.

Rich candidates, they benefit, they don't have to make disclosure of their rich friends with sometimes damaged them in their political context. Rich, a lot of candidates don't wish to face the disclosure problem. There's no disclosure problem with public funding. Finally, of course, politicians, political managers, television, cosmeticians, political consultants, all the people involved in the business of electing candidates to office benefit from public funding. You know, Anderson would be a little of it. Eventually, there are other approaches which would make it entirely a public function. Well, don't you think, though, Mr. Wilson, it'd be a good idea to try to equalize things a little bit so the fellow without any money could run for office? Well, I see no objection with fellow without any money running for office. I do see a rejection to taking my taxes and requiring me somehow to pay money to support the candidacy of a man with whom I may not only disagree. With whom I may personally detest and abominate his principles, but, of course, public funding would do.

Well, but what these people say is that the Anderson bill would bring the people a little closer to the political process. What do you say to that? I suspect that it's a kind of a foot in the door matter. Once the money starts falling from Washington, people wouldn't be anywhere near as close to the political process as they are now. But a man seeking to stand for office has to go to the people to get support from his friends and associates of the community general. Well, I've always thought that one of the responsibilities of a elected official was to have to go to the people and talk to them, find out where they stood and where they were willing to put their support. Do you agree with that? I certainly do. And would this bill deter that sort of relationship? I think that ultimately the Udall Anderson bill is a bill which is very carefully and intelligently drawn to meet the kinds of objections that I have made to adhere. But it also is drawn to meet those objections in order to get the very important principle and revolutionary principle of public funding established in law.

Once you get Udall Aniston, you're going to get Kennedy Scott and some of the more generous public funding. Kennedy Scott is another public financing bill. That's the one that didn't quite make it over Christmas. Now, Mr. Wilson, are there any problems in our political system? Certainly there are problems in the political system. And the problems due to some degree flow from the availability of money. Adding to private money, additional public money isn't going to change the problems that charismatic candidate who fails to deal with the issues. The theatrical nature of the game is it's become the problem of the candidate who uses posters to find out where the crowd is. So then he can get out in front of them later on. The sort of thing Joe McGinnis wrote about in the selling of the president. Let's go to Mr. Law and State. Thank you for coming.

And I think it's important that this position be discussed. But I'm curious, I heard Archbold Cox blamed because Nixon fired her. But now you're opposing the Anderson Udall bill on the grounds you don't like the Kennedy Scott bill. It seems to me that we're getting off the subject. Are you opposed to the idea that people should go out, raise small contributions from the community, and then have that matched? I'm proposed to having the government of a free country hire people to run for public office, which is what public financing of candidates hits. In other words, if this, you call it a revolutionary principle, we're adopted. I don't know how it's revolutionary since Theodore Roosevelt proposed it, unless he was a revolutionary system. Well, it hasn't been done in Congress. It's revolutionary in the sense that with what we have now, it would prevent the kinds of things from happening, which have had the country in upheaval over its political process. That's your conclusion. Well, I'm asking you, how's it revolutionary? That's what I'm asking. What is revolutionary? Well, the present time, persons who wish to raise money for the purposes of getting themselves elected to office have to raise it privately and not from tax funds. I think that's a substantial and revolutionary change.

Suppose I said I thought it was revolutionary to have a system in which small numbers of people could purchase elections, and that was not true when we started. But that's become revolutionary. I think burden, the burden to prove for the rest of the person who makes that charge. The revolutionary charge. The charge that people are purchasing elections. I can not suggest you that up in the fifth district of Massachusetts in 1972, the heaviest spending candidate, all the 435 congressional fights, was the fellow named John Kerry, who had nine democratic primary adversaries and was beaten by a Republican in a democratic history. Now, how does this stack up with a position that somehow people are buying elections with dirty money? The fact that one can cite instances where people who spent more money lost, doesn't change the general problem, doesn't. The exception in the situation such as you cited, does that change the basic fact that for most people to run for office is now impossible because they cannot engender the kind of support that Mr. Kerry with a national constituency could or Senator Biden could. Well, I assume those nine fellows around in the primary against Kerry had a shot too. Some of them were mayors, members of the state legislature, individuals, and-

But I don't want to- How is it exclusion there? I just like to understand what you're saying. In a country in which Abraham Lincoln once could campaign for 75 cents because he could shake hands with every voter in his district. When you now have districts with a half a million people with technology that means you can't even get on television or mail to your voters anything about yourself unless you have enormous sums of money. Why isn't it right to say that we now need to provide the wherewithal so that people can be seen and know their own constituents when they're running rather than rely on the luck of having wealthy friends or wealthy mothers or whatever else? Why is that not part of the American process? It's probably kind of a curve on my part, but I think the American process was rather well demonstrated in New Hampshire in 1968, no matter that you're quite familiar with. Senator McCarthy certainly had the substantial funding in the year 1968, and you were that? You and I understand that there are times in virtue of trying to even without lots of money.

But I'm asking about- Well, you thought all George Romney's billboards didn't- I'm not asking whether it can occur. I'm asking why the framework and structure and legal setup shouldn't make it fairer. Why is it fairer to depend on those exceptions rather than to say we want a system in which equal access to funds is available within the limits of what we can do given the fact that we know that if you have a beautiful wife, you have a certain advantage, there are obviously other factors we can't equalize. But why is it anti-American, anti-democratic, revolutionary, whatever adjective you want to say that in this country, a person's capacity to run and to have his views heard, to meet his constituents, to mail to them, to get on television, or not to be limited to the question of whether he knows a few well to do people or has national prominence that will get him funds from around the United States? Why is that not a step forward fairness in your opinion? Well, I don't think that's entirely true. I mean, Dan Walker and Illinois, Ruben Askew and Florida, persons with great funds, Auditor in New York, Metz and Obama and Ohio, have failed. I don't see the two establish the case that a poor man of merit cannot find friends, cannot find supporters who will not corrupt.

I've read an awful lot of campaign disclosures in Massachusetts as a very stiff and careful depository system, and I know those aims and they aren't people trying to corrupt the process. Most of them are people trying to assist it and strengthen it. All right, let's go back to Mr. Bordeaux for a question. Taking the big view of the whole thing, Mr. Wilson, what do you see is the biggest danger in this bill? Well, I think once again, you start hiring people to run for office. The public's going to know what you do with the money you pay them. Is that going to bring about federal control? Well, it was once in this country a U.S. Attorney General's subversive list. It's conceivable that a different political climate the Congress might be moved to change the laws almost to exclude persons of extreme views of some kind. There would be a constitutional challenge, and I don't say it's that simple, but I say that if where you spend public money, the questions of responsibility and accountability do arise and the government controls that money.

All right, back to you, Mr. Launstein. Is it proper in a society like ours that if you happen to be born wealthy or haven't had access to a very wealthy person who either agrees with you or sponsors you, that you should be able to get the enormous advantage over other people in your community by having unlimited resources to use in a campaign while everyone else has to grub around and try to find small amounts of money? Is that democracy? I guess it is. I don't think Mr. Launstein that it really is possible to legislate an equality between, let's say Nelson Rockefeller and myself, nor is it necessarily just that it should be legislated. I think we got a very substantial ideological difference. You summarized our difference right there. That's exactly it. I can't say take away his money, but I can say don't let his money purchase elections where other people don't have that opportunity. I think that's democracy.

All right, Mr. Wilson, I want to thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen. That completes the cases and now it's time for each of you to present your closing arguments. Mr. Bordeaux, could we have yours, please? Ladies and gentlemen, we have identified what I see as two problems here. I submit to you that we've shown that Mr. Launstein's proposal solves neither of them. First, the problem of large campaign contributions influencing government. I think we've demonstrated that you don't have to burn the bond down to get rid of the rats. Full disclosure of all contributions will effectively deal with that problem if it exists. Secondly, the problem of access to the political arena, both for candidates without money and for the small contributor. Now, our political history is full of examples of good men without much money who have been successful politicians,

have been elected to office and served their government well. They have attracted the support they needed because of what they stood for and they were their own men in office. We've seen tonight a proposal which can only end in total federal control of our elections. The shackling and discouraging of our participation in the selection of our elected federal officials. Stand firm with me on this most basic proposal and vote note. Thank you. Thank you. I really find myself wondering what country these gentlemen have been in since the last election and since the disclosure since then. I wonder if anyone believes there will be anything left of democracy in the United States if we don't fundamentally overhaul the way in which money affects political process. I can't believe that at this stage we're going to permit people to say that because there may be flaws of one sort or another,

if people's over detail or argument over some sort of historical route that we're on in the future, that we should not take at least the first step to democratizing elections in the United States as far as money is concerned. If we don't do that, I'm very concerned about whether in fact we will have elections in which the ordinary citizen has a fair way to influence his neighbor and to run for office. I hope that all of you who are listening to this program will see the basic importance to our whole system of writing, to support the Anderson Udall bill and of summarizing these arguments for your neighbors so they too see that this juncture act must be used to overhaul the political process so we are not for sale as a country. Thank you. Thank you. Now it's time for you and our audience to get into the act. What do you think about tonight's question? Should the federal government subsidize political campaigns and limit individual contributions?

Send us your yes or no vote on a letter or postcard to the advocates, box 1974, Boston 02134. Then the integrity of its electoral process and that includes your participation. Send us your vote on whether or not you think election laws ought to be changed in the manner proposed tonight. And we'll tabulate your votes and make them known to Congress and others concerned with this issue. Remember the address, the advocates, box 1974, Boston 02134. And if you'd like a transcript of tonight's debate, send your request to the same address. The advocates, box 1974, Boston 02134. And then close the check or money order for two dollars to cover the cost of printing and mailing. You should get your copy within three weeks of our receiving your request. Be sure to specify your name and the program. Now recently, the advocates debated the question, would the nation be better off if fewer people went to college? Of the more than 2,300 viewers who sent us their votes, 55% said yes, that emphasis ought to be placed less on a liberal arts education and more on a junior college vocational school job training or education through work or travel.

45% said no, a liberal humanizing effect of a four year arts course is so important that it ought to be encouraged even for reluctant students. And now let's take a look ahead to next week's program. Should the United States develop highly accurate missiles for fighting a limited nuclear war? A question next time for the advocates. And now with thanks to our able advocates and their distinguished witnesses, we conclude tonight's debate. The advocates as a program takes no position on the issues debated tonight. Our job is to help you understand both sides more clearly.

This program was recorded. Thank you.