In a letter responding to an inquiry about present election law in the District of Columbia by Chairman Diggs, Mayor Washington conveyed my opinion as the Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia that there are a number of important steps which the D.C. Board of Elections is authorized to take under the authority of existing law.

The Board of Elections is already taking a number of those steps to insure an open electoral process. On May 17, 1974 the Board provided the first orientation session for candidates for the coming elections. In addition, prior to that session, the Board promulgated a number of new regulations. It has also adapted to local election requirements the forms developed by the General Accounting Office for Federal elections. I will leave it to the Board witnesses to go into further detail about what the Board is doing to prepare for the coming elections.

BOARD OF ELECTIONS

My comments about the Board's activities are, however, relevant to the comments of the District Government on H.R. 14754, the bill which has been reported to the full Committee. The District government has taken the position before the Government Operations Subcommittee that because it is so important to have open and fair elections this year we favored the enactment of the bill which has been introduced by Chairman Diggs-H.R. 13539-which would have augmented the present authority and membership of the D.C. Board of Elections. We continue to be of that view. Because time has elapsed and candidates have declared their candidacies, we continue to think it is extremely important that the Board of Elections be the body which is vested with the additional campaign election authority under consideration by the committee for the new division. Time alone will necessarily require that the division adopt many of the decisions which are now being made by the Board.

As a practical management issue, we would also question whether the creation of a Division within the Board of Elections is the best way to achieve the independence which seems to be the intention of the bill. The bill has a unit which is labelled a division but in many important respects it is a separate and independent entity. The participation of the Chairman of the Board as a member of the Division will not dispell this fact. There remains an unclear division of authority.

If the committee favors creation of a Division in the Board of Elections as an administrative unit to handle campaign financing, then let the Board of Elections establish such a division upon its own initiative. On the other hand, it is our position that if the committee favors the creation of an entity which is independent of the other operations of the Board of Elections, it is a mistake to put it nominally in the Board of Elections. We join in the request of the Board of Elections that it be given the additional authority it will need to insure as completely as possible an open electoral process.

As an alternative to the creation of a Division within the Board of Elections, the District Government supports the appointment of additional members to the Board of Elections. The Board of Elections has

informed us that the number of members of the Board should be increased and we rely on that judgment. We do, however, question whether or not the Board of Governors of the unified D.C. Bar is the appropriate authority to make appointments to the Board of Elections. Various drafts of bills before the Subcommittee had a number of different proposals for assigning appointment responsibility but we fail to see why this authority should not be continued in the Mayor. The D.C. Self Government and Governmental Reorganization Act would appear to recognize the validity of Mayoral appointments subject to Council confirmation. We have previously suggested and continue to suggest that this mechanism might be adopted for the appointment of additional Board Members.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

I would also point out that we think the compensation specified in the bill for the Executive Director and the General Counsel seems rather high. These are super grades and we fail to see why these positions cannot be treated as are other positions subject to the regular personnel classification requirements.

COMPENSATION FOR BOARD

We are in accord with the objectives of the amendment to the Election Act provided by section 507 of the bill which will permit Members of the Board of Elections to be compensated realistically for the increased workload and additional responsibilities generated by the forthcoming elections. To make certain, however, that the removal of the ceiling on the amount of compensation which may be paid such. Members is applicable only to calendar year 1974 and not the fiscal year, we suggest inclusion of the word "calendar" immediately preceding "1974" in line 22 on page 38 of the bill.

The voter information pamphlet proposed in H.R. 14754 is a practice which has been adopted in other jurisdictions as well as a number of private institutions in their elections for members of the Board of Trustees and Overseers. We have no objection to a statutory provision of this kind provided it is accompanied by adequate funding. We would also call to the Committee's attention the concerns which the Board of Elections expresses in its testimony, and the fact that the local media already provides this picture-statement type of inforcation free of charge to the city.

LOCAL TAX CREDIT

For the same reason-namely a concern about the drain on District revenues we continue to oppose a provision for a local tax credit. Federal law already allows a tax credit or deduction for contributions made on behalf of local candidates and elections. The effect of also having a local credit will be that a person contributing the amount of the federal and local credits combined will, in effect, be making a contribution without any cost to himself. This is a matter which would be well left to the City Council to decide in 1975.

D.C. DELEGATE

In my previous testimony before the Subcommittee I suggested that the District government favored having the Office of the D.C. Delegate subject to the requirements of local law for campaigns. The Federal Compaign Practices Act reporting requirements may be sufficient for the Delegate provided they are required to be filed with the appropriate local authority. But it remains our position that the Office should be subject to the reporting requirements and aany and all limitations on expenditures and contributions which are required of other local candidates. The possibility of slates is real and, consequently, limitations and the time of filing reports must apply to all candidates from the District of Columbia regardless of whether they be candidates for local or Federal office.

SUPPORT H.R. 14754

There are a number of other major and significant amendments and new provisions in H.R. 14754 which did not appear in the bills before the Government Operations Subcommittee. We have been informed informally that, based on the experience of the General Accounting Office in federal elections, a number of the changes will strengthen the bill, and, accordingly, we support them.

We also favor the new provision such as the one in H.R. 14754 which would exempt candidates who exepect to spend a small amount of money in their campaigns.

The District government also endorses the provisions of section 505 which call for public hearings and investigations by the D.C. Council in 1975 on the operation and effect of the bill on the 1974 elections. This will enable the experience and knowledge gained in the initial elections to be used to strengthen and improve local campaign finance laws in those areas where needed.

LOBBYING

Before closing I would like to mention two other areas which, if the Committee decides they are needed this year, could be added to the bill before it is reported. The District of Columbia does not presently have any laws regulating local lobbying activities. In anticipation of the home rule government we have already received inquiries and requests to register from lobbyists. Therefore, it may be appropriate for the bill to be amended to include a provision on lobbying.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

We also think it would be desirable for the District to have conflicts of interest laws directed specifically to local problems. One of the bills before the Subcommittee H.R. 13914 introduced by Congressman Fraser included some provisions relating to this matter and we would be happy to work with the Committee to develop an appropriate amendment to H.R. 14754.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement.

Mr. FRASER. What about lobby registration? Does the City Council have authority to enact that now?

Mr. MURPHY. It would probably be somewhat doubtful. The City Council would have to operate under Section 1226 of the D.C. Code which authorizes the Council to pass usual and reasonable police regulations for the protection of life, limb and property and comfort of the citizens.

It may be possible that they could act under that section, but if the laws go into effect this year I think it would be preferable if the Congress would enact it.

PUBLIC FINANCING

Mr. FRASER. You have said nothing about the possibility of public financing or partial public financing. I know that issue doesn't appear in any of the bills before Mr. Adams' Subcommittee.

Do you have a view on the general questions?

Mr. MURPHY. I think the general question of public financing for local elections, I would suggest it would be a matter appropriately considered by the new City Council.

It gets into the whole area of the City revenues, needs and expenditure requirements, and I think rather than picking out that particular type area and treating it separately, would be a mistake and would be better left for the Council to look at that in the total picture of District revenue.

BOARD OF ELECTIONS

Mr. FRASER. On the Board of Elections, which you would favor retaining as a principal administering enforcing agency, the thought is that it has three members at present?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes.

Mr. FRASER. And your suggestion is that the Mayor should make appointments, and if that is done, all five will serve as the enforcing body?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes.

Mr. FRASER. And they are all appointed by the Mayor now?

Mr. MURPHY. Correct.

Mr. FRASER. Is there a problem about that Board, for example, enforcing its requirements effectively in matters that may involve Mayorality candidates?

Mr. MURPHY. I don't think that would be a realistic fear, Mr. Chairman.

I think once appointed as members of the press and present Board, they act totally independently, and my feeling would be that that would continue. It would not do that as a realistic cause of fear.

Mr. FRASER. The Board of Elections would, of course, in the future operate under the legislative framework established by the City Council. Once January 1st comes about, the City Council would have the power to revise all of these?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, Sir.

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Adams?

LOCAL TAX CREDIT

Mr. ADAMS. I want to be certain about your comment that one can deduct for local elections from U.S. income tax.

I am not certain about that and I want to be sure you have checked that point. I know you can deduct for Federal office elections, and I know you can deduct for contributions to national campaigns, and I think you can deduct for contributions to local political parties, but can you deduct for contributions to municipal candidates in the country?

Mr. MURPHY. My understanding, Mr. Adams, is that you can. I would be happy to check that.

Mr. ADAMS. I would appreciate it. I would like a written opinion because I think there is some doubt about it. If we assume this is a local election as opposed to a Federal election, there may be some doubt that one could use the Federal tax credit.

Mr. MURPHY. I would be happy to check that out.

Mr. ADAMS. We are trying to put together a bill for this election only. It will be the responsibility of the newly elected mayor and city council to determine the actual scope of the law that will govern future city elections. This is outlined in title V in the section "A Study of 1974 Election and Report by Council.”

BOARD OF ELECTIONS

This bill will be enormously difficult to explain on the floor. It is very complex, and we've arrived at the point of appointing authority to the Board of Elections, is there not a potential problem when the people who are going to be running for election appoint the Board members? If the machinery is not changed by the City Council and the Mayor, the appointees of one of the candidates will be judging the election.

Mr. MURPHY. I realize that. I honestly don't perceive that that would constitute a real problem.

These appointees would be members of an independent board. I don't think that you would have the situation where there would be any adverse impact on a board member based on a consideration of reappointment to the board.

Mr. ADAMS. What I am saying is that you open the candidate to the enormous problem of being subject to activity for all Board rulings. The people that must do this will be in a difficult position because they will have to make judgments directly affecting the type of campaign that goes forward. The candidate may be criticized if the person he appointed has made a ruling favorable to him. Consequently both may end up with the ruling being used against them. Is that really what you want?

Mr. MURPHY. I really think our position is that we don't feel that once an appointment is made, and you have the individual who is appointed, you have that individual's integrity involved that there should be any cause for alarm.

Mr. ADAMS. I am not saying that the individuals are going to act improperly. Quite the contrary. What I am saying is that the first thing that their opponents are likely going to do when a ruling comes