Mr. FAUNTROY. With respect to regulations and with respect to campaign finances? Mr. MURPHY. Yes. Now, the relationship that would obviously exist would be normally one between the Board and its staff. The staff is going to play a large role in the practical day-to-day problems that exist and keeping the Board apprised of these problems. We do not perceive any real problem in this expertise area if you have the single Board with responsibilities for elections and with campaign practices because you would have staffing that would adequately support the Board in both areas. Mr. FAUNTROY. My question doesn't run to expertise, but to time and attention. You have indicated that already you feel that the present Board has given as much time and attention as it can give to its present responsibilities, and that is the question. You want them to take more responsibilities? Mr. MURPHY. And we are informed by the Board that they feel with two additional members that the Board will be able to properly handle the matters that arise under the election laws and properly provide for the administration of the Campaign Practices Act. Mr. FAUNTROY. And your understanding is that two additional members would focus on the campaign? Mr. MURPHY. I think the Board itself could provide for subcommittees which would operate within the Board. The Board could approach it in that manner. VOTER INFORMATION COST Mr. FAUNTROY. I would second Mr. Breckinridge's request that you provide us an estimate of the cost of the mailing on the candidates. Mr. MURPHY. We will be happy to. Mr. FRASER. Mr. Hogan. Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It might be helpful to the Committee if you could indicate on the costing of the pamphlet what the cost of the reproduction of the picture would be. When you get into pictures and raising the costs and you have the minority to furnish the cost of mailing and the printing and this kind of thing, and give in addition what the cost of processing a photograph would be in that process. Mr. MURPHY. We will check out the cost of the pamphlet as provided by the law. HATCH ACT Mr. HOGAN. Secondly, in line with Mr. Breckinridge's inquiry, it is my understanding, or I know that we have a copy of the press release coming out on the administrative determination of the Civil Service Commission that the exceptions of the Hatch Act that apply in Montgomery County and Arlington County will apply here in the District of Columbia in the forthcoming election so that I assume that there will be increased numbers of independent candidates and those independent candidates certainly will want to be represented and have their representatives present to challenge the votes and this kind of thing in the different precincts. I assume that has been taken care of not only for the political parties that are registered here, but also for independent candidates? Mr. MURPHY. They are entitled to that. LOBBYING Mr. HOGAN. Further, Congressman Nelsen had a lobbying amendment with an errata sheet, and, hopefully, we will have a clean amend-ment on that by tomorrow, and if we gave that to you tomorrow, would you have an opportunity to comment on it at an early date so that it can be part of the record here? Mr. MURPHY. Yes. BOARD'S FINANCING Mr. HOGAN. I have a justification for the Board of Elections for the budget year of 1975 and the 1973 budget was $400,000 and the 1974 budget was presumably $540,000. They are asking for $757,000 for fiscal year 1975, $757,000. I assume that if your comment on the cost of the pamphlets here you indicate that you wanted funding for it and you wanted authorization, or do you want the money? You said adequate funding. Do you want authorization for a tax? Mr. MURPHY. I would suggest that it would be an authorization for an advance for this purpose from the Treasury to be repaid. Mr. HOGAN. Towards the $757,000? Mr. MURPHY. Right. Mr. HOGAN. You have no idea at this point what that figure will be? Mr. MURPHY. Until we check out the cost, we don't. Mr. HOGAN. I notice projected for this budget this year alone you have $141,000 for printing and reproduction, but as far as you know that budget request does not include the pamphlet that is referred to here in this bill? Mr. MURPHY. As far as I know it does not. Mr. HOGAN. Do you happen to know whether the $74,000 includes voting machines or is that the control data accounting? Mr. MURPHY. I don't think I could answer that question. Mr. Fisher is here and I think he can. Mr. FRASER. Mr. Washington. Mr. WASHINGTON. Can you provide the committee with a detailed cost estimate? Mr. MURPHY. We can get that. BOARD JURISDICTION Mr. WASHINGTON. Your comments suggest some confusion with respect to boards and division. I am interested in having your views on jurisdiction as to the questions relating to jurisdiction. Which would dispose of these questions, the Board or the division? Mr. MURPHY. On the jurisdiction as contemplated by the Act? Mr. WASHINGTON. Which matters should be referred to the Board or which matters ought to be referred to the division? Mr. MURPHY. As presently established, all matters arising under this legislation would go to the division. Mr. WASHINGTON. Have you had occasion to talk to GAO and get their judgment and advice on the function of reporting on campaign limitations? They took the view that is an executive function and it ought to be vested in an executive director or board or division or commission should not be established or vested with that kind of authority. Have you had occasion to discuss this matter? Mr. MURPHY. I have not discussed it along those lines with any representative of GAO. Mr. WASHINGTON. I take it you are saying that the Board ought to be increased from three to five or three to seven, and that consistent with self government it ought to be decided on how to handle those questions and the Congress should not decide as to the questions. Mr. MURPHY. I think that the Board would operate as we would envision it, and that the full Board would have the responsibility for all actions taken under the legislation. If the Board shows it could determine the function through committees and assign one or two members of the Board to be concerned with the area, but the final action in any matter would be taken by the Board. Mr. WASHINGTON. You indicated earlier some recent regulations promulgated by the Board. In light of those promulgations, what provisions are contained in this legislation within the surpluses? Mr. MURPHY. I don't think I would view any of them as being surpluses. Congress would have provided by law specifically for these areas and the regulations, of course, if they were anywise incompatible with the legislation would have to be revised to comport with the legislation. Mr. WASHINGTON. Then there is the question as to whether we ought to override the Board. If you have authority, would it be judicious for Congress to provide for additional regulations? Mr. MURPHY. I don't think it poses any problem for Congress because the Board at this moment is attempting to put into regulatory form many of the concepts that are contained in this legislation, but it cannot go beyond existing statutes, particularly in reference to limitations on campaign spending, et cetera. Mr. WASHINGTON. So finally, Mr. Chairman, it is my sense that when we took up the Self Government Bill that it was the understanding that the general electoral process would be best in the Board of Elections. Do you think we are moving away from that thrust by establishing a division within the Board? You indicated that it is not subject to any examination or review by the Board, but simply subject to judicial review. Mr. MURPHY. That is essentially correct, Mr. Washington. Mr. WASHINGTON. Would you feel more comfortable if all of the members were sent to Council for confirmation? Would that in effect mitigate the problems if they were subject to confirmation by the City Council? Mr. MURPHY. I believe it would. Mr. ADAMS. Are there any further questions from anybody on the panel? We are going to take Mr. Clifford Alexander next, which is not the order on the prescribed agenda, but we understand that he has a time problem and in order to accommodate him, we will be glad to hear from him at this time. STATEMENT OF CLIFFORD ALEXANDER, CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ACCOMPANIED BY DANIEL K. MAYERS, FINANCE CHAIRMAN Mr. ALEXANDER. I would like to introduce Daniel K. Mayers, Finance Chairman for the Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia. Chairman Diggs, Members of the Committee, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am Clifford Alexander, currently a candidate for the office of Mayor of the District of Columbia. I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you and give my views about H.R. 14754. This campaign finance reform bill will have an important and significant effect upon the quality of the political life that develops in the District of Columbia as a result of our overwhelming approval of Home Rule on May 7. I would like at the outset to commend this Committee in its efforts. to provide the District, in time for its first elections under the home rule bill, with a comprehensive plan to control campaign contributions and expenditures in connection with those elections, to regulate campaign organizations, to require the public reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures, and to create an enforcement agency adequate to oversee the enforcement of elections laws. The District of Columbia is entering an arena of politics where, as the 1972 Presidential election has sadly revealed, access to too much money and the ability to use or misuse it without public scrutiny has a destructive effect upon our political process and the ability to govern. In this context, I think it is especially important and appropriate that this Committee pass upon a comprehensive campaign bill and send that bill to the Full House for its timely action. CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES Rather than dwell upon the many aspects of the bill that I commend, I would like to offer my comments about one provision that is of crucial importance to this Committee's whole campaign reform efforts. That provision is the limitations, in Section 402 of H.R. 14754, upon the total campaign expenditures that a candidate can make during any calendar year. I will focus, more specifically, upon the Section 402 expenditure limit for mayoral candidates, since the limit selected for mayoral candidates will control the magnitude of the spending limits selected for other District candidates. The establishment of an effective limit on campaign expenditures is absolutely necessary if the District's new electoral process is going to be open to all candidates— that is to candidates who are not supported by monied special interests. Our city must not be dominated by a candidate whose lavish campaign gifts could mount a series of packaged messages to the citizens that prevent an adequate discussion of the issues. The precise limit that this Committee adopts will, I submit, determine whether the District will in fact have any campaign law that can prevent the political spending abuses of the 1972 Presidential elections. Let me begin by describing the various spending limits that I understand to be under consideration by this Committee. H.R. 14754 Section 401 of H.R. 14754, the bill that this Committee has drafted in response to several other bills submitted to it, establishes a $100,000 spending limit for each mayoral candidate's primary election and a separate $100,000 limit for each such candidate's general election. S. 3264 S. 3264, the campaign bill introduced by Senator Mathias and currently before the Senate District of Columbia Committee, sets an expenditure limit for mayoral elections that has been estimated at about $132,250 per candidate for the upcoming mayoral elections. That limit, which applies to the aggregate expenditures for primary and general elections, is based upon a formula set at 25 cents for each voting age District resident. No more than 15 of these 25 cents could be spent on a candidate's general election campaign. H.R. 12638 Congressman Fauntroy's alternate bill, H.R. 12638, submitted to this Committee proposed a limit for the mayoral campaign of $90,000 for each candidate's primary election and $90,000 for each general election. This proposal also includes a cost-of-living adjustment that, I am told, would not substantially increase the limit beyond its stated $180,000 level. H.R. 13539 Finally, Chairman Diggs' alternate bill, H.R. 13539, submitted to this Committee, proposes a campaign spending limit, but did not set a dollar figure for that limit. It is my understanding, however, the Chairman Diggs has more recently supported the $200,000 limit in the Committee's bill, H.R. 14754. While there is, of course, some room for disagreement as to the appropriate expenditure ceiling, I submit that this Committee should adopt two criteria in approaching its task of selecting the appropriate limit. First, the Committee must make some effort to select a limit that reflects the actual costs of running a citywide campaign adequate to allow a candidate to get his or her message to the resident voters of the District. Second, keeping in mind that its purpose is to limit expenditures, the Committee should select a limit that prevents a candidate from making expenditures that are not necessary to get his or her position on the issues to the people but instead are intended to dominate the District's electoral process by lavish spending. It is vitally important that our elections in the District of Columbia be dominated by the issues and not by special interests. Too much |