Arata, Clarence A., executive vice president, Metropolitan Board of Trade. Bartlett, William M., treasurer, District of Columbia Republican Com- Barry, Marion, Jr., president, District of Columbia Board of Education, accompanied by John Gibson _ _ Budka, Allan, president, Socialist Workers' Campaign_- Clark, Richard W., special assistant to the president, Common Cause, accompanied by Ms. Linda Heard, staff, state issues program. Fisher, Charles B., Chairman, District of Columbia Board of Elections; accompanied by Dr. Robert E. Martin, Chairman, District of Columbia Board of Elections; and Board Member Norval Perkins, executive Griffiths, Arturo, director, Washington Ghetto Industrial & Investment Corp. Foundation, accompanied by Arturo Griffiths, Jr. Hechinger, John W., District of Columbia Democratic National Com- Murphy, C. Francis, District of Columbia corporation counsel; accom- panied by Ben Gilbert, Director, District of Columbia Office of Planning Nevius, John A., Chairman, District of Columbia City Council.. Thompson, Fred, Director, Office of Federal Elections, General Account- ing Office, accompanied by Bradley Litchfield and James Scarborough. 108, 120 CAMPAIGN PRACTICES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 1974 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 1310 Longworth House Building, Hon. Brock Adams, presiding. Present: Representative Adams, Representative Diggs (Chairman of the full Committee), and Representatives Fraser, Fauntroy, and Breckinridge. Also present: Robert T. Washington, Jr., Chief Counsel; James T, Clark, Legislative Counsel; Jacques DePuy, Subcommittee Counsel; John E. Hogan, Minority Counsel; Leonard O. Hilder, and Ralph Ulmer, Professional Staff. Mr. ADAMS. The Subcommittee will come to order. These public hearings, before the Subcommittee on Government Operations, are for the purpose of receiving testimony on campaign practices legislation for the District of Columbia. Pending before the subcommittee are two bills, one by the Chairman of the Full Committee, the Honorable Charles C. Diggs, Jr., and the other by the Delegate from the District of Columbia, the Honorable Walter E. Fauntroy, our first witness this morning. It is also my understanding that Congressman Donald Fraser, a member of this subcommittee, has yesterday introduced a comprehensive campaign reform bill, similar to that introduced on the Senate side by Senators. Mathias, Eagleton, and others (pp. 16-66).. I might point out for the record, that title V of the Fauntroy bill (H.R. 12638), which provides partial public financing of certain elections campaigns, has been referred to the Subcommittee on Revenue and Financial Affairs since it deals with the authorization of public funds. I have discussed this matter with Congressman Tom Rees, chairman of that subcommittee, and he has agreed that testimony on public financing should be received in these hearings before the Government Operations Subcommittee. With the District of Columbia about to elect a Mayor and City Council for the first time in over 100 years, it is crucial that this first election as well as all subsequent elections-be open, fair, and free of possible domination by a handful of wealthy contributors. Yet, existing D.C. law is clearly inadequate. Limitations on contributions and expenditures are woefully weak. Political campaign committees are loosely organized and controlled. Existing reporting requirements are replete with loopholes. (1) At this time, I would like to add a personal thought. Although the new officials under the home rule government do not assume office until January 2, 1975, and thus it is necessary for the Congress to legislate in this area, we should strive at all times to let local citizens govern their own destiny. It is thus my feeling that once an elected government has been chosen by the people, the whole issue of campaign reform should be debated and decided by locally elected officials. We should not attempt to dictate an elaborate scheme at this time; we should, however, attempt to provide minimal standards of campaign fairness. At this point, the distinguished chairman of the Full Committee, the Honorable Charles C. Diggs, Jr.. of Michigan, would like to make a statement. Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to have you here. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHARLES C. DIGGS, JR. Mr. DIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Having been closely associated with you in connection with our historic effort regarding the Home Rule Bill, which is bringing self-determination to the District of Columbia for the first time in 100 years, I feel reassured that this particular measure which is of the kind of importance that you have so indicated, is in good hands, and that you will process this very important matter with the same kind of energy and diligence and imagination that you have exercised in connection with other matters. I am particularly delighted to hear you open the hearing with a statement which is certainly consistent with my concept, that we are not at least in this particular measure trying to legislate on some kind of comprehensive, long-range election reform, but the thrust of our legislation here is devoted to the upcoming elections and the thrust of this legislation would, in effect, defer longer range plans to the locally elected government. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, the election law of the District of Columbia contains campaign reporting and spending provisions which are no longer adequate to meet the public demand for fair, clean, and open campaigns. The elections next September and November for Mayor and City Council will be watched closely as the vital beginning of local home rule for the Nation's Capital. Action by this Congress is needed, however, to insure that those coming elections are free from secret financing and free from the heavy hand of overly large contributions, slush funds and bundles of cash. If these practices can be prevented, it will mean a great boost in public confidence in the newly elected officials. If we fail to act, the home rule bill, it may be launched in a sea of mistrust and recrimination. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that confidence not only on the part of the public, but confidence on the part of the Congress is a very important element in the relationship between the Federal Government and the local government in this initial period of home rule. Whatever we can do to eliminate any mistrust on the part of the constituent elements of the Federal-local relationship will be very helpful and will be actually essential if home rule is to be meaningful. Now, some of the major features of the bill I have introduced H.R. 13539, have been suggested by the Office of the Comptroller General of the United States. As you know, the Office of Federal Elections of that agency played a major role in enforcing the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Many of the difficulties encountered in the 1972 elections can be avoided by provisions that we have included in H.R. 13539. I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, that you will have a witness from the GAO at these hearings on Thursday morning. The GAO will be recommending that candidates be made specifically responsible for control of the overall limitations for spending on their campaigns. In the bill I am sponsoring, we have the following requirements: Requiring a candidate to designate one central campaign committee; prohibiting separate committees formed without the candidate's permission and requiring the candidate to receive the reports of the committees he has authorized and consolidate and furnish them to the Board so that the candidate will always be aware of whether the expenditures are reaching the ceilings. Requiring all receipts and expenditures of the candidates to be processed through designated checking accounts, audited by the GAO and the Election Board. GAO further recommends setting ceilings, including the aggregate of the candidates' own expenditures and committees authorized by him. Mr. Chairman, for many years the District of Columbia Board of Elections has had the responsibility of receiving campaign expenditure reports for elections in the District of Columbia. In order to set machinery in place as quickly as possible to regulate campaigns for Mayor and Council which are being started up already, the bill which I have introduced strengthens the Board of Elections and its staff rather than trying to create a new Commission and putting together a staff to regulate these campaigns. I want to underscore that. We have a real practical problem here if we are going to gear up for this election. There is a serious question that has nothing to do with the merits of a commission, or any other reforms that I certainly agree with, but we are faced with a very practical problem of being prepared for this election. The thrust of this particular bill is that it is perhaps advisable to strengthen the existing Board of Elections for this particular year, rather than trying to create some additional machinery. The Home Rule Act, as you know, authorized an additional $750,000 for the Board of Elections to conduct the referendum on May 7 and the elections this fall. I am assured that these funds are adequate to cover the Board's added responsibilities included in this particular bill, H.R. 13539. It will not be necessary to authorize or appropriate any additional funds for any other kind of machinery if this bill passes. If a year from now the new City Council prefers to set out a Commission on Election Campaigns, it will have the power to do so, as you know, under Section 752 of the Home Rule Act and that would certainly be consistent with the statement that you made in opening this very important hearing. Now, Title III of the bill expands the power of the present Board of Elections to enable it to enforce campaign reporting and ceilings on contributions and expenditures in a more effective way. That Title is also drafted for us by GAO. |