process of suing the IRS on just such a point in connection with volunteer charitable work, and I am being backed by the major feminist groups of this country. The babysitting expenses of candidates as well as their volunteers should also be allowed as a legitimate campaign expenditure not to do so would be extremely discriminatory against women candidates, and particularly so against poorer women candidates.

Section 102(e) calls for wording on the bottom of political materials. It doesn't go far enough. It should say the following, "Copies of our financial statements are filed regularly with the Division of Campaign Finance of the District Board of Elections, and are open for public inspection in whatever the room number is of the District Building."

Section 206(b) (2) I am heartily in favor of including business addresses and positions held, as it gives the general public a much better idea as to the true financial backing of each candidate.

REPORTS

Section 207. This section on reporting by other than political committees strikes me as theoretically OK, but practically difficult. It is unclear who would be penalized if the intentions of this section are not carried out. How are people to be informed of this requirement, especially if, say, they take out an ad in favor of a candidate, or act independently of the candidate of his or her committee? Is the candidate supposed to hand a contributor such a form to be filled out, or whose responsibility is it? Is not this handled anyway by the campaign committee? I am not against it, but I don't think it is worded sufficiently clearly.

Section 401 (a) and (b). The distinction between persons and individuals is incomprehensible to me, and as a former copy editor, I think I can understand the English language as well as the next one.

CANDIDATES' SPENDING

Section 401 (b) (5). I feel a candidate should be allowed to spend his or her own money on a campaign to the limit that he or she wishes, provided that limit is under the overall financing limitation of that particular office. This section is particularly disabling for a candidate in the opening phases of a campaign where a lot more is going out than coming in. Unless there are provisions made for a candidate to be repaid out of campaign funds for personal monies contributed to it, I think this is an unfair limitation.

FINANCIAL LIMITATIONS

Section 402 (a) (1). On the other hand, I think the overall sums proposed for the upper limitation of campaign financing are much too generous. Speaking on Council Ward races, my own area, I think that $7,500 is quite generous enough to inform voters thoroughly. I'd just as soon have candidates get out and work to get their points of view across I don't like the idea of buying elections without hard work, and these monstrously generous limits permit a candidate to do just that.

Section 402 (a) (2). This seems to me to have crept in here unawares from quite another bill-it doesn't make any sense whatsoever in this bill. You need a copy editor.

TAX CREDITS

Section 502 (a). The section on tax credits is a jim dandy one-and will encourage a wide base of political contributions. I would like to see struck the upper limit of such tax credit-it should go as high as the limitations on contribution to any one candidate are placed.

VOTER INFORMATION

Section 504 (a). The idea of a pamphlet is an excellent one, and I am wholeheartedly in favor of it. The provisions it contain ensure that all candidates will emerge on an equal footing. My only and decidely minor objection to it is on the grounds that unopposed candidates should be able to get their material in as well-after all, a write in campaign may produce opposition, and there is an obligation to get as much information on all candidates as possible.

Section 505 (a) (A). I am pleased that you would consider public financing.

VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS

Section 505 (a) (C). I think that a delay in requiring the Board of Elections to prepare a proper purge mechanism and to develop a workable and non-invasion of privacy is not justifiable. The Board needs to do this now, and I submit to you evidence on this point. Here are 1,500 cards of registered voters who have either moved or died. I offered these cards to the Board of Elections, and they turned me down, they said they didn't want them because the registration period had ended. This would be a farce if it were not so serious. Two months ago, I formally requested the Board under the Administrative Procedures Act to develop a reasonable purging system-to date they have not yet answered my letter. The Board should be acting decisively now to prevent any possibility of voter fraud, and it should not be waiting for another year or so. It is perfectly capable of acting now.

While I am discussing this, I wish to register my objections to the use of Social Security numbers when voting. It is open to abuse, but more importantly, it is wrong. It is an unwarranted invasion of privacy-if the Board would only, one, require proper identification at the point of registration, and two, check signature cards to verify handwriting, this problem could be easily taken care of. At present, it does neither, and I know, because I registered more voters than any other volunteer registrar in the city-over 1,000 voters in the 1 year that the Board allowed volunteer registrars to help increase the franchise.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you very much, Mrs. Meehan. The record will remain open for 2 weeks if you wish to put written material in the record, and we will be happy to see it and the staff will be pleased to talk to you. Thank you again, Mrs. Meehan.

We will call this hearing to a close and we will resume at 9:30 tomorrow morning.

[Whereupon at 1:55 p.m., the committee recessed to resume at 9:30 a.m. the following day.]

CAMPAIGN FINANCE PRACTICES

TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1974

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D.C. The full committee reconvened, pursuant to recess, at 9:45 a.m., in room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Thomas R. Rees, presiding.

Present: Representatives Rees (presiding), Adams and Fauntroy. Staff Present: Robert B. Washington, Jr., Chief Counsel; James T. Clark, Legislative Counsel; Dale MacIver, Assistant Counsel; John Hogan, Minority Counsel; and Leonard O. Hilder and Ralph Ulmer, Professional Staff Members.

Mr. REES. The Committee will please come to order.

This is a meeting of the Full Committee on the District of Columbia, and the purpose of this meeting is to conclude the hearings-full Committee hearings on H.R. 14754, which is the District of Columbia campaign finance reform bill.

We have as our first witness Mr. Joel Joseph.

STATEMENT OF JOEL D. JOSEPH, CANDIDATE FOR COUNCIL, WARD 3

Mr. JOSEPH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Why is it that the bill before us permits campaign expenditures for D.C. City Council candidates to be eight times those allowed for Baltimore City Council candidates? $20,000 for a City Council race is outrageously high. Who is going to support a candidate for City Council to the tune of $20,000 unless they expect special favors in return?

LIMITATION ON CONTRIBUTIONS

I am a candidate for the D.C. City Council for Ward 3. I am also a public interest attorney and do not have ties to special interest groups or to privileged rich. There is no way imaginable that I can raise anywhere near $20,000. The proposed $20,000 limitation is a sham and a farce; it hurts those unable to solicit large amounts of money and permits special interest groups to pick candidates in primary elections and to smother them with money. Access to the political arena must be provided for those without large sums of money and without special interest group support.

Some candidates for mayor and City Council have already raised outrageous sums of money. It is all very reminiscent of massive contributions to the Nixon campaign just before the campaign contribution

disclosure law went into effect. Any campaign finance law passed by this Committee should apply retroactively.

Criminal penalties, of course, cannot be applied ex post facto but there is no constitutional or legal prohibition on requiring that contributions, which exceed congressionally enacted limitations, be re

turned to the donor.

The limitations on contributions and expenditures proposed are, in general, excessively high, and in some instances illogical and inconsistent. The $100,000 limitation on expenditures for mayoral candidates is only slightly higher than the 10 cents per capita recommended by Common Cause. However, the $20,000 limitation for Ward Council races is more than double the 10 cents per capita standard. Many States provide lower expenditure limits per capita for City Council posts than for mayoral candidates. Just last month the State of Maryland passed the Fair Campaign Financing Act of 1974. This Act provides for expenditures of 7.5 cents per capita for Baltimore City mayoral candidates. City Council candidates in Baltimore, however, must not spend more than 2.5 cents per capita.

Applied to the District of Columbia, Baltimore's campaign financing law would permit candidates for mayor to spend approximately $60,000 and candidates for City Council to spend approximately $2,500, one-eighth of that allowed in the bill before us.

I feel that these limitations are clearly more appropriate than those proposed.

Former New York City Mayor John Lindsay recommends that a limit of $100 be placed on contributions to all candidates for public office except for Presidential candidates. I agree with Mr. Lindsay that a $100 ceiling is appropriate and I personally refuse to accept contributions above that amount.

PUBLIC FINANCING

Public financing of political campaigns has for some reason been ignored by this Committee. Since Congress is considering the public financing of national campaigns, why doesn't this committee approve the public financing of this one D.C. election as an inexpensive experiment?

To be eligible for public funds, candidates would have to raise a certain amount of money and/or gather a certain number of signatures. Such a requirement would prevent unserious candidates from receiving public funds.

ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS

The enforcement provisions of the bill before us are woefully inadequate. What safeguards are in the bill in the event that Campaign Finance Division and/or the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia are biased and refuse to take action against campaign abuses? The bill before us does not provide for the invalidation of elections on the grounds of campaign financing violations. A candidate could blatantly violate this law and still take office if his or her excessive campaign techniques are effective.

I propose that all registered voters be given standing to bring suit in court to enforce campaign financing abuses.

Provision of citizen suits is a needed safeguard to guarantee enforcement of campaign financing laws. This is not a new or novel approach. Many statutes provide for "private attorneys general" to assist regular governmental attorneys in enforcing our laws.

The Clean Air Act, for example, provides for citizen suits against violators of that Act. A citizen suit provision should provide for attorneys fees of the successful plaintiff to be charged against the unsuccessful defendant in order to encourage citizen enforcement and to discourage violations of campaign financing laws.

In summary, campaign expenditure limits for the D.C. City Council races are outrageously high, as are campaign contribution limits. The upcoming D.C. election would be an ideal test for public financing of campaign expenditures. Even if it is too late for the primary races, it is not too late to publicly finance the general elections.

Finally, the enforcement provisions should be expanded and citizen enforcement allowed.

Thank you very much.

Mr. REES. Thank you, Mr. Joseph.

Are there any questions of the Members of the Committee?
Mr. HOGAN. I have one question.

LIMITATION ON CONTRIBUTIONS

I notice Mr. Joseph, that you say the former City Mayor John Lindsay recommends a limit of $100 be placed for contribution to all candidates for public office.

When did he make that announcement?

Mr. JOSEPH. Well, it was in the Newsweek which was dated yesterday. Mr. HOGAN. I see. I was reading the New York Times recently and my recollection is that the former Mayor of New York is now touring Europe and may be-touring Europe since he left office and I do not think he has been back in New York but for a few days. And I understand he was the guest or had been the guest of the Government of Switzerland, the Government of Germany, and the Government of Russia.

Now, I do not know whether he is a candidate now but obviously he has been accepting contributions in kind, I would say, for quite a considerable time since the first of the year when Abraham Beame replaced him as Mayor of New York.

Mr. JOSEPH. I do not have a copy of Mr. Lindsay's statement on the top of my head, but I would put it in the record if you would like. Mr. HOGAN. I just wonder whether his own actions are speaking contrary to his words that is quoted there.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. REES. He is a private citizen.

Mr. HOGAN. I do not know whether he is running for office or not in 1976 but as to a $100 limitation for candidates, I wonder now. Mr. REES. My experience with the New York delegation is that everyone is always running for office.

Mr. WASHINGTON. Is it your statement that candidates for Ward C should spend more than 2.5 cents per capita? Is that your statement? Mr. JOSEPH. That is right. That would work out to approximately $2,500 per ward race.