STATEMENT OF C. FRANCIS MURPHY, CORPORATION COUNSEL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ACCOMPANIED BY: BEN GILBERT, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, Mayor Walter E. Washington has requested that I appear today to express the views of the District Government on H.R. 12638 and H.R. 13539.

The District of Columbia Government appreciates the action taken by the House District Committee to consider promptly an election financing and disclosure law to govern elections in the District of Columbia. We support these efforts to establish the machinery for an open electoral process and thereby guarantee that the city's home rule government will begin in a manner designed to instill public confidence in the local electoral process and its elected officials.

The present election law in the District of Columbia was not designed to regulate adequately the conduct and financing of election campaigns in the manner contemplated by H.R. 12638 and H.R. 13539. Designed as it was for a limited electoral process, existing law deals only with the mechanics of elections, such as petitions for candidacy, registration and voting procedures, and certification of election results. It contains only a limited number of provisions concerning contributions and none on spending. Accordingly, we fully recognize the need, in view of the forthcoming elections, for prompt enactment of a campaign financing law. We would like to offer the following observations and suggestions with respect to the two bills: First, we heartily endorse the application to District elections of financial disclosure and reporting laws. The centralized filing requirements and the provision that each candidate designate a single political committee as his central campaign committee, as provided by both bills, are highly desirable attributes for effective enforcement of the law.

A strong law unaccompanied by strong enforcement will not do the job. Centralized committees, together with consolidated means for accepting and disbursing contributions and the reporting thereof, will greatly facilitate proper enforcement.

In this connection, we suggest that the committee give consideration to a requirement that each candidate for office shall designate only one bank as the depository for his campaign contributions, and the designation by a candiate of only one political committee to receive contributions in an election.

Second, with respect to the administration and enforcement of campaign reform, we prefer the approach of H.R. 13539 which would expand the functions and duties and confer additional powers on the present Board of Elections. The District has consistently opposed the creation of additional, independent local agencies with authority to act only in a limited area, as would be the case with the establishment of a District of Columbia Political Campaign Finance Commission under H.R. 12638.

We think it is important to provide the same financial limitations the candidates for Delegate as for the candidates for Mayor and airman of the Council.

It should be kept in mind that we are talking about an election in e of the Nation's major cities-the Nation's Capital.

The officials to be elected will have state functions as well as unicipal duties to perform. It is of the utmost importance that the oters' choices be made in an atmosphere of full public discussion and isclosure and that the process not be restricted with arbitrary contraints that may get in the way of that free discussion and choice. Detailed information is lacking on the costs of comparable elections n comparable municipal situations, if a comparable situation can be aid to exist. In any event, it is our feeling that the limitations to be et be those designed to guarantee the process, but not to use the first .ome rule election as an occasion to experiment with controls and estrictions that may be much more restrictive than is required to insure a proper election.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Murphy, for your detailed and careful look at the legislation before us. I should like to ask two questions at this point.

First of all, as you know, the Chairman has left the question of the contribution-expenditure limitations open in his bill, H.R. 13539, and I have computed the limitations.

You, in your testimony, have indicated that you feel that the Congress would be in a far better position to arrive at those formulations, but have also suggested some bases that should help us at arriving at that through a look at the areawide Congressional election expenditures.

I would certainly-and I am sure the members of the committee would be helped if you could come up with some suggestions as to specific limitations, if the ones suggested in H.R. 12638 are, in your judgment, too low, we would like to have the benefit of the District Government's experience in the elections which we have conducted and recommendations to the committee to fill in, at least, the figures left out in the Chairman's figure, and, apparently, left too low in our bill H.R. 12638.

Mr. MURPHY. I would like to suggest that we do not state the level is too low. We suggest that it might be too low.

Mr. FAUNTROY. I wonder if it would help us in arriving at the limitation-and I agree that the Members of the Congress have some experience in the election campaigns in their own states and Committees perhaps you are in a better position in the District of Columbia government to make suggestions on the area picture in general and the area elections in particular to date.

Mr. MURPHY. I think, Mr. Chairman, we could certainly could develop, hopefully, information as to, for example, advertising costs in papers and information of that nature perhaps.

Perhaps through prior elections campaigns where reports have been filed, that may be of some help. We feel a great deal of help could come from a consideration of local Congressional elections, which are faced really with the same problem of paying a media cost which is associated with a region, rather than just the area in which the election is taking place.

We think the present Board of Elections should be the central agency for campaign and election matters and favor strengthening the Board by the addition of the powers necessary to insure its independence and impartiality in administering a campaign practices law.

The duties which H.R. 12638 would assign to a new District of Columbia Political Campaign Finance Commission are fully compatible with this approach. The Board of Elections is maintained as an independent agency under the Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act and the provisions of H.R. 13539 appear to provide the current Board with adequate authority and independence to protect the integrity of the electoral process.

The vesting of election controls in the Board of Elections will also continue authority for the prosecution of violations with the Justice Department, rather than establish a new and separate prosecutorial authority as provided by H.R. 12638.

Third, we also support the principle of establishing reasonable and realistic limitations on contributions and expenditures. We appreciate the opportunity which H.R. 13539 offers to develop information concerning reasonable limitat ons on expenditures. Since the District of Columbia is without a tradition of voting election campaigning, it is important that the first election involve a public which is well-informed about the candidates and their views.

We support full disclosure of campaign financing, but we also support financing which will enable candidates to get their positions to the electorate. The members of this committee and the Congress of the United States have far better information about the costs of elections than we do. We think areawide Congressional election expenditures may be most informative, reflecting as they do the media costs of the Washington Metropolitan Area.

We think the limitations in H.R. 12638 may be unduly restrictive. Campaign exposure will offer one of the few avenues for candidates to inform the public of their views given Hatch Act restrictions and the high percentage of Federal employees as well as the limited number of elective offices in the District of Columbia. That exposure will cost money, and we trust the committee will be fully cognizant of the realities of campaign expenses when the limits are set.

Fourth, H.R. 13539 provides for a tax credit against District of Columbia income taxes up to $1.50. We find certain ambiguity in the present language, but we assume here that the $12.50 credit was intended to be the total maximum amount which an individual taxpayer could claim. If that be so, the committee should be aware that this provision alone will cost the District Government more than $200,000 annually in loss of revenues. The tight budgetary limitations facing the District of Columbia compel us to oppose this provision on this ground alone.

Further, we oppose the piecemeal whittling-away of local revenues and prefer to leave such decisions to a comprehensive review of local taxes by the D.C. Council under Public Law 93-198. It should be noted that the existing Federal law already provides sufficient incentive to contribute to local elections.

Fifth, we favor inclusion of the office of Delegate to the House of Representatives from the District in any local campaign financing

act. We think it is important to provide the same financial limitations for the candidates for Delegate as for the candidates for Mayor and Chairman of the Council.

It should be kept in mind that we are talking about an election in one of the Nation's major cities-the Nation's Capital.

The officials to be elected will have state functions as well as municipal duties to perform. It is of the utmost importance that the voters' choices be made in an atmosphere of full public discussion and disclosure and that the process not be restricted with arbitrary constraints that may get in the way of that free discussion and choice. Detailed information is lacking on the costs of comparable elections in comparable municipal situations, if a comparable situation can be said to exist. In any event, it is our feeling that the limitations to be set be those designed to guarantee the process, but not to use the first home rule election as an occasion to experiment with controls and restrictions that may be much more restrictive than is required to insure a proper election.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Murphy, for your detailed and careful look at the legislation before us. I should like to ask two questions at this point.

First of all, as you know, the Chairman has left the question of the contribution-expenditure limitations open in his bill, H.R. 13539, and I have computed the limitations.

You, in your testimony, have indicated that you feel that the Congress would be in a far better position to arrive at those formulations, but have also suggested some bases that should help us at arriving at that through a look at the areawide Congressional election expenditures.

I would certainly-and I am sure the members of the committee would be helped if you could come up with some suggestions as to specific limitations, if the ones suggested in H.R. 12638 are, in your judgment, too low, we would like to have the benefit of the District Government's experience in the elections which we have conducted and recommendations to the committee to fill in, at least, the figures left out in the Chairman's figure, and, apparently, left too low in our bill H.R. 12638.

Mr. MURPHY. I would like to suggest that we do not state the level is too low. We suggest that it might be too low.

Mr. FAUNTROY. I wonder if it would help us in arriving at the limitation-and I agree that the Members of the Congress have some experience in the election campaigns in their own states and Committees perhaps you are in a better position in the District of Columbia government to make suggestions on the area picture in general and the area elections in particular to date.

Mr. MURPHY. I think, Mr. Chairman, we could certainly could develop, hopefully, information as to, for example, advertising costs in papers and information of that nature perhaps.

Perhaps through prior elections campaigns where reports have been filed, that may be of some help. We feel a great deal of help could come from a consideration of local Congressional elections, which are faced really with the same problem of paying a media cost which is associated with a region, rather than just the area in which the election is taking place.