of Elections by a representative of the FBI and I think that represents a harassment of individuals who may not agree with the party but believe that the party has a right to participate in the electoral process.

HATCH ACT

The other point I just want to touch on briefly is on the current legislation on the Hatch Act, and why I think it was a tremendous move for the 1974 elections to allow citizens to run. I think it is sort of a little bit ironic that while allowing citizens to run for office in the 1974 elections, and this is on a one-time basis, that it also prevents them from supporting and actively campaigning for candidates. The Hatch Act was set up, if my history is correct, to prevent corruption particularly, perhaps, of individuals of a higher employment level than postal workers and individual clerks and typists, etc.

In a city like the District of Columbia certainly that restrictions on a large number of residences who work for the Federal Government, that restrictions from participating in the electoral process is something that needs to be considered very gravely.

Just one other point, and that is the point made by the gentleman from Common Cause on the Congress legislating for the District of Columbia on fair campaign practices. While I am not entirely sure that I agree there should be this even for one year, I should hope that would be the maximum amount of time that the legislation would be considered for, and that the elected representatives for the city council be allowed to set any further campaign fair practices legislation that they would deem would be best for the citizens of the District of Columbia.

I just wanted to touch on some points that were not covered in my prepared statement since everyone here has a copy of my statement. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you.

And your statement in full will be placed in the record. [The statement of Allan Budka in full follows:]

STATEMENT OF ALLAN BUDKA, CANDIDATE FOR CITY COUNCIL CHAIR, ON FAIR CAMPAIGN PRACTICES IN D.C.

I am coming before this committee to call upon them to initiate legislation to insure fair election practices for all the political parties and all the voting residents in D.C.

First of all, none of the three bills before the Committee now-by Fauntroy, Diggs, and Mathias-to control D.C. campaign financing and to set spending limits for campaigns can solve the problem of corruption and excesses in contributions to the candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties.

The Watergate scandal has taught us that as long as the giant corporations, the business interests, and a tiny minority of millionaires continue to finance the candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties, these candidates will function in their interests. As the Watergate events revealed to the American people, campaign fund limits in no way prevented the corporations from making illegal contributions through various channels. The ITT contribution to the Republican party to fund their convention in San Diego is one example; the contributions by the milk industry, the airlines, and the oil companies to Nixon's campaign are others.

Public financing through Fauntroy's bill doesn't remove this corruption either. He would have the candidates who receive the greatest support from the business interests of the Board of Trade receive equal funding through a certain formula from public taxes! This hardly solves the problem of inequities in campaign funding.

The Socialist Workers Party calls for public funding of publicity for all candidates who are running for office on an equal basis. The mailing out of brochures with candidates views by the Board of Elections would be one way of educating voters on the positions of the candidates, so that the voters could decide who best represents their interests.

Another aspect of fair campaign practices is the end to restrictive petitioning requirements for parties which are not already on the ballot.

A candidate of the Democratic or Republican party can be on the ballot in a primary by securing only 100 signatures. The Socialists Workers Party, on the other hand, must secure over 25,000 signatures to insure ballot status for its slate of candidates.

These inequitable requirements for small parties place an undue burden on them. These parties, which for the most part are not funded by the business interests in D.C., must spend an inordinate amount of their time petitioning just so the citizens of D.C. can have the right to vote for them. It is thus doubly difficult for them to get out their ideas. On the one hand, they do not have the funds of the Democratic and Republican parties and on the other hand, they are forced to spend their time, money, and volunteer help to fulfill time consuming requirements to get on the ballot.

The Socialist Workers Party calls upon this Committee to initiate legislation to abolish the Hatch Act. In a city where the Federal and D.C. governments are the largest employers, the enforcement of the Hatch Act prohibits over one third of D.C. voters from campaigning for candidates of their choice.

If proposals go through Congress, government employees would be able to run for office in this election. However, these same employees cannot take an active part in campaigning to support a candidate!

Supporters of the Home Rule charter have applauded the institution of an elected Mayor and City Council. However, what benefits do D.C. residents derive from this election when tens of thousands of government employees are denied their democratic right to participate in campaigns for candidates of their choice. Once again special legislation like the Hatch Act cannot prevent governmental corruption. The crooks who are elected to office like Nixon and Agnew are a product of the two party system in which the Democratic and Republican parties function for the benefit of the large corporations.

Fair election practices cannot be insured by legislating who contributes how much to a candidate of these two parties. It cannot be insured by preventing government employees from engaging in their democratic right to support candidates of their choice.

Fair election practices will result when the Congress and the Board of Elections guarantee that every candidate has the right to ballot status without undue requirements and when the citizens of D.C. have the right to actively support those candidates in the elections.

Mr. FAUNTROY. We do understand that it is the essence of your testimony that you would prefer a public funding for all candidates? Mr. BUDKA. Yes, sir.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you so much.

Counsel?

Mr. DEPUY. Just one question, Mr. Chairman.

Do you have any recommendations as to how contribution limitations may affect special parties like yours, that as you point out are somewhat at a disadvantage or having a difficult time having access to the general public and so forth? Do you have any recommendations to us on contribution limitations?

Mr. BUDKA. I think that the points on the limitations are, for the most point, not something that we even consider. I mean, the $100 contributions would be very few and far between for parties of our size or other parties in the District of Columbia, maybe like the Statehood Party or the People's Party, etc.

On one of the bills about the matching fund, when you are talking about campaigns, there are a large number of candidates usually in the

District of Columbia not all of the Democratic or Republican Parties who would be, as Mr. Griffiths pointed out, in the position where $400 is a substantial amount of money; so that the matching funds are a little bit out of order. You would be matching $400, perhaps, for one candidate and up to thousands of dollars for other candidates.

So I think there is an inequity involved there.

On the point of the tax check-off, perhaps individuals should be allowed to indicate any party that they would like that tax check-off to go to.

Does that answer your question?

Mr. DEPUY. Thank you.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Counsel?

Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

What if there was no indication as to where the funds should go, what is your position as a minority party as to how the funds should be split up if there were tax check-offs, you know, $12 or whatever it happened to be?

Mr. BUDKA. Well, if there were no, as you say, no means to indicate where that should go, I think that one solution, and I think it is a very simple way and people may think it ludicrous, but that it just be divided up evenly.

Mr. HOGAN. Thank you.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you so very much.

Our next witness is Dr. Ellis Haworth, President, Federation of Citizens' Association.

MRS. E. B. MORRIS, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY,

FEDERATION OF CITIZENS' ASSOCIATION

Mrs. MORRIS. Dr. Haworth happens to be ill. I found out late this afternoon that I would have to take his place.

My name is Mrs. Edward B. Morris, the First Vice-President and Secretary of the Federation of Citizens' Association. I expect to be very brief.

There had been to our knowledge no advance publicity as to H.R. 12638 and H.R. 13539 so that they might be referred to the law and legislation committee for study and report at the regular meeting of the Federation on March 28, and their existence and the dates of public hearings thereon were discovered only by coincidence.

Therefore, they were considered in general at that March 28th meeting to obtain a consensus and then referred to the Executive Board for final analysis and recommendation. The Board then held a special meeting on March 30 and does now present the following position statement on behalf of the Federation.

OBJECTIONS TO H.R. 12638

One, H.R. 12638 has provisions which we find objectionable for the following reasons:

(a) We concur that there should be limitation on contributions and expenditures in campaigns for public office, if these rules can be enforced effectively and economically, and there should be public disclosure of such contributions.

However, we oppose use of public funds from the D.C. budget to "match" private contributions. This would cause taxpayers to support candidates with whose views they are not in accord. Also, there is always difficulty in stretching budget funds to cover essential services, and additional diversion of these funds could result in still higher taxes, which many can ill afford if they are to eat.

(b) Use of public funds would mean that taxpayers in the 50 States would be contributing to D.C. local elections through the Federal appropriation to the D.C. budget.

(c) No provision is made in the bill for GAO help in auditing political contribution and expenditure reports. It suggests making comparison reports, and a whole new bureaucracy could therefore be set up though elections are periodic, not continuous.

(d) No time limit is set for receiving contributions and detailing expenditures.

H.R. 13539

Two, H.R. 13539 seems to be generally acceptable except that the limitation on permitted personal expenditures seems high, but it is a limitation much to be desired. Now, that was the $25,000 amount.

Three, only after our Board meeting did we learn of a bill on the same subject introduced by Senator Mathias. Its provisions on "dos” and "don'ts" to guide conduct of public officials should be considered for possible inclusion in any House legislation.

The Mathias bill is understood to call for creation of an independent Election and Ethics Commission to supervise a new requirement that all District candidates, elected officials, and employees above GS-15 grade level file periodic personal financial statements showing, among other things, all sources of income and business involvements.

We just happened to consider the matter of personal financial statements in our discussion and were unanimously opposed to such statements as an invasion of privacy and likely to deter many well qualified persons from seeking public office.

Also, the setting up of such a Commission, which of course would then want a staff, would be, as remarked earlier, another drain on revenues badly needed for essential services to citizens of the District of Columbia.

Therefore, the Federation of Citizens Association does recommend passage of H.R. 13539 with some lowering of permitted personal expenditures and in particular asks that there be no compromise which would include "matching" funds from the D.C. budget. This bill answers objections to H.R. 12638 as outlined herein.

We also recommend study of the Senate bill with possible inclusion of features which might be desirable, but rejection of any required personal financial statement.

We thank you for the opportunity to express our views. It would be helpful if news media would give publicity well in advance of public hearings so that greater input of public sentiment might be obtained, and also especially helpful for groups representing large segments of the population to be on your mailing list to receive copies of bills which are referred to your District of Columbia Committee.

For many years there was such a mailing list and it was extremely helpful. Bills could be sent to secretaries of such organizations for referral to the appropriate committee.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mrs. Morris, for your testimony particularly for your mention in the final paragraph for the need for the news media giving adequate public notice of these meetings when they are appraised of them.

Mrs. MORRIS. Well, it used to be very helpful to receive copies of the bills in the mail. As Secretary of the Federation for 20 years, I used to get copies of every bill, I believe three copies, and refer them to our appropriate chairman, who might want to give one to the subcommittee chairman, and I kept one for myself when I would write letters with regard to them. It really was helpful.

Now, you have to go up to the Hill and get them, and it is not always convenient.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Yes, that is a very valid point you make.

LIMITATIONS ON CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES

Mrs. Morris, on the question of your support of H.R. 13539, I wonder if you have given any consideration to limitations which are left blank in that bill, but which we would have responsibility for in this committee for recommending?

Mrs. MORRIS. I was trying to remember. The Sunday Star had recommended limitations for each of the three bills in its editorial, as I remember it. And it was my recommendation that the Diggs' bill has the highest limitations of any of the three bills.

Am I right on that?

Mr. FAUNTROY. Yes, on contributions.

Mrs. MORRIS. On contributions? Yes.

Mr. FAUNTROY. On individual contributions and the like, but I had really reference to the expenditures' aspect of it. We are trying to arrive at a figure for the maximum expenditures that might be made in a particular campaign.

Mrs. MORRIS. I believe your bill says $90,000 for mayor and so on, does not it?

I do not think we went into that specifically. There was a limitation, which we were happy to see on it, and it did not seem terribly high although you sort of have to have some rich friends, or else have an awfully broad public support to reach even $90,000, I would think. Mr. FAUNTROY. Counsel?

Mr. DEPUY. No questions.
Mr. FAUNTROY. Counsel?

Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

There is no provision in either of the bills, and you may not have had an opportunity to discuss it before the Federation, but if you do have an opportunity to discuss it, or if you have your own views on the question of whether or not there should be some provision, either in the bill or a bill on campaign financing, or an amendment to the bill having to do with registration and reporting on lobbying; do you have any views?

Mrs. MORRIS. We had not considered that at all.

Mr. HOGAN. Would you consider it and let the Committee know? Mrs. MORRIS. The matter could be referred to our law and legislative committee.

Mr. HOGAN. Would you do that and let us know?

Mrs. MORRIS. Yes.