Mr. WASHINGTON. Is that realistic? Can we compare Baltimore with Washington in terms of standard of living, economic conditions, is that real? Mr. JOSEPH. I think they are fairly comparable. The cities are approximately the same size and I do not think the standard of living is all that different. In any event, the $20,000 limit I believe is way out of line. I find that when you limit the top that you are really running up the incumbent's bill. Mr. JOSEPH. There are not any incumbents now. Mr. REES. I am talking about you are trying to rewrite-you are making a recommendation to a bill which will be District of Columbia law. Mr. JOSEPH. But it can be revised by the Council. Mr. REES. Are there not incumbents, because I suspect the members of the City Council that now constitute it will be running for the elected position? If you restrict a person to $2,500 and you find that here you have an incumbent who has been in there for 20 years, in the newspapers every day, day after day, that is nothing the incumbent would want more than a $2,500 restriction on the ability of his opponent to run against him. In California we have about 8 or 9 candidates for Governor in the Democratic primary and leading the pack according to the polls is the Secretary of State Jerry Brown; and, number two is the Speaker of the Assembly, Mr. Murretta: and number three is the Mayor of San Francisco, Mr. Alioto. And they are in the same position they were before they started running for Governor. So they have this absolute built-in support. Mr. Roth who is coming up-not fast enough-is not an office holder and is probably spending a million dollars of his own money in the campaign but under restricted laws he would not even be allowed to do that. That is what I worry about. I hate to give the incumbents everything. Mr. JOSEPH. Well, I agree with you to some extent but, as I said, there are not any incumbents right now and most of the incumbents ought to be running. Making a $2,500 limitation is slightly low but I feel that $20,000 limit which allows a Council candidate to spend more per capita than the Mavor is right out of line. Mr. WASHINGTON. Are you familiar with proposed legislation pending before the committee in the House Administration in the House relating to congressional elections and what will include the Delegate's selection in the District of Columbia? As I understand it, the staff document proposes about 25 cents per capita. The Senate bill, as I understand it, proposes about 25 or 26 cents per capita and I am intrigued by your 2.3 percent per capita. Mr. JOSEPH. The 25 cents is for congressional race. Common Cause suggests 10-cent maximum for any race and the 2.5 was taken from the Maryland State law. Mr. WASHINGTON. I am familiar where you got that from but I am simply trying to determine whether or not it is realistic. Common Cause also supports public financing of elections and are we here saying that by reducing the amount that can be spent you are really almost sharing in public finance. I am not opposed to that at all. I am simply trying to determine whether we are being realistic in what we are spending for a campaign. I am not sure that you can spend $2,500 for a campaign. It certainly helps a guy who has a name recognition and does not allow for a person who has any-has not had any exposure to get exposure at 2.5 cents. Mr. JOSEPH. I believe that I could run a campaign with $2,500. I am running against a candidate who is better known than myself and I feel that $2,500 would allow me to run an adequate campaign. The ward is not that large of an area and with sufficient volunteer work, $2,500 could go fairly far. Mr. REES. Pardon me. How many people live in the ward, not registered voters? Mr. REES. The congressional district is about 95,000- CONTRIBUTIONS BY LABOR AND BUSINESS What is your view on the restriction-two restrictions to the bill with respect to prohibiting labor and businesses from taking money from their treasuries? Mr. JOSEPH. I agree with that. I believe that individuals only should be contributors and that no funds should be taken from a union or a corporate bank account. BOARD OF ELECTIONS Mr. WASHINGTON. Have you had occasion to read Title III of the legislation relating to the new division of the Board of Elections? Mr. JOSEPH. I read it. Mr. WASHINGTON. Do you support that? Mr. JOSEPH. I believe I do. Mr. WASHINGTON. Do you support the policies, the appointment process, the appointing authority of a unified bar? Mr. JOSEPH. It seems as though you would get a fairly unbiased board that way. Mr. WASHINGTON. You mean if you had it exclusively lawyers? Mr. JOSEPH. It is not exclusively lawyers. There are two lawyers and where does it state that they have to be lawyers? Mr. WASHINGTON. I would just have to assume that the board of governors of the bar association would not appoint doctors. Mr. JOSEPH. This would be a quasi-judicial organization so I would say the appointment of lawyers might be appropriate. I would not want a doctor to be appointed to a court. Mr. WASHINGTON. Well, even on both the Judicial Nominating Commission in the District and the Judicial Tenure and Disability Commission, we provided for non-lawyers. There was a very strong sense and feeling by members of the Senate District Committee that the Commissions ought not be a cozy kind of club of only lawyers, or only doctors, or others. I am really trying to get your sense about that decision, because I think that is a very important aspect of any kind of administration. Further, it is the view of GAO that the functions of administering a campaign finance law ought to be vested in one executive official and not in a board or a commission, and rather than having the board administer such a program it ought to be administered by the executive director, general counsel, or staff director. I want to get your feeling and your sense about this, about the board division, whether or not it would be an effective vehicle for administering this law. Mr. JOSEPH. Well, in general I would feel it is better to have one person in charge, one person, one executive, to direct it. So, in that sense I would be opposed to a board rather than one person who would direct it, so you could pinpoint that one person if there were any problems of the administration. D.C. DELEGATE Mr. WASHINGTON. Do you believe then that the Delegate to the House from the District of Columbia ought to be included in this bill? Mr. JOSEPH. The Federal law is pending right now, is it not? Mr. WASHINGTON. That is correct. Mr. JOSEPH. It is being considered, so I think it would be more appropriate to have the same law apply to the Delegate as applied to every other Representative. Mr. REES. You can have dual jurisdiction. I make two separate reports, one for the State of California and the other for the Clerk of the House and the California provision is tougher than the provision in the House. Mr. JOSEPH. Right. But I believe the new City Council could pass such legislation. I do not really believe it is appropriate for this Committee to pass it just before home rule starts in the Delegate race. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. WASHINGTON. Do you support a conflict of interest provision? Mr. JOSEPH. Is a conflict of interest provision in there? It is pending before the Committee. It is not in the Subcommittee reported bill. Mr. JOSEPH. Basically, how does it read? Mr. WASHINGTON. No official may use his office or official position for financial gain for himself. Mr. JOSEPH. I certainly would support that. Mr. REES. That is the most ambiguous conflict of interest law I have ever heard of. Mr. WASHINGTON. I think it is a very important matter to get on the record from candidates, their position. Senator Mathias and Senator Eagleton have been dealing with a strong conflict of interest provision, and as I understand, the Subcommittee deferred to the new city government but there is sentiment that it ought to be included in the bill that is going to be reported on to the floor. Mr. REES. If there are no other questions, I would like to thank you Mr. HOGAN. I have just one question, Mr. Chairman, if I may. The witness here has referred to the city of Baltimore compared with the District of Columbia. The ranking minority member of this committee strongly favored nonpartisan election for the District of Columbia, and he did this in the committee. He did this on the House floor where they were successful. They came out of the House with a nonpartisan election and that was reversed in the conference-the House-Senate conference on the home rule bill. The reason given him by the Senate proponents for partisan election in the District of Columbia, and the reason that they should have partisan election in the District of Columbia was that new government, the mayor and the City Council were to be likened to a State. Now, I assume that Governor Mandel of the State of Maryland is going to spend more than 22 cents per capita-maybe not. I do not know. Mr. JOSEPH. For Governor, I believe it is 10 cents per capita. Mr. HOGAN. Well, let us see, he has raised as the press indicated, I think that he has raised nearly a million dollars. The population of Maryland is about 3.6 million. What is he going to do, give away the rest of the money he does not spend? Mr. JOSEPH. I believe that if it is not spent that he should be required to give it back. Mr. HOGAN. But the limitation now as you understand it in the State of Maryland is 10 cents per registered voter or per person or annually or what? Mr. JOSEPH. Per capita, so it would apply to the 3.6 million. So it would be $360,000. Mr. HOGAN. That he would be limited to spending himself? Mr. JOSEPH. That is right. Mr. HOGAN. And how about if he is with a slate? Mr. JOSEPH. It just applies per individual candidate. That would be for each race, the primary and for the general election. Mr. HOGAN. He is up to $720,000. Mr. JOSEPH. That is right. Mr. HOGAN. All right, thank you. Mr. REES. All right, thank you, Mr. Joseph. I appreciate your being with us this morning and testifying before this bill. I now want to recognize Judge Harry T. Alexander. STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY T. ALEXANDER, JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Judge ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your consideration so I can get back to court and continue with a jury matter. Thank you also, Members of the Committee. At the outset perhaps I had better correct the designation, candidate, councilman at large. The fact is I have not yet made that determination but I nevertheless do appreciate the privilege that you have given me to appear here pertaining to this proposed legislation. H.R. 14754 I would like to first express my deep appreciation for the invitation extended to me to express my views on H.R. 14754, an outline of the latest version of the "campaign finance bill and possible amendments on conflict of interest and disclosure of financial interest," introduced in the 93rd Congress, Second Session, on May 14, 1974. At the outset, I wish to once again congratulate the Chairman of this distinguished Committee, as well as its Members for successfully reporting out the bill which culminated in the enactment of the first home rule legislation for the District of Columbia in some 100 years. I am confident this distinguished Committee will continue to successfully tackle the problems of the District of Columbia until complete home rule is won for the citizens of the Nation's Capital. I am delighted too Mr. Chairman, that a significant number of citizens demonstrated their interest in home rule, approved the charter on May 7, 1974, and advisory councils as well, even though the Nation's Capital was not deluged nor bombarded by the media with the importance and significance of the charter and advisory councils. There can be no doubt however, that numerous clinics and seminars served as great tools of education, causing a representative turn out of voters in the District of Columbia.. This distinguished Committee must now be about the serious business of safeguarding the constitutional right of citizens to run for political office, and establishing guidelines of insuring some concept of equal justice, or equal opportunity for all serious candidates to enter primaries, participate in general elections, and to win office. It may appear that reporting contributions of $10 or more as contained in sections 201(2) (b) and (c) of the proposed legislation might be too low a ceiling, and could be raised perhaps as high as $100. However, it is submitted that the provisions suggest a fuller reporting of contributions consistent with a more realistically likelihood of major and minor contributions ranging from $10 down to $1. JUDICIAL REVIEW Section 301 (f) of Title III-Division of Campaign Finance-gives me considerable difficulty in that it denies the right of any review "with respect to the establishment of policy or rules for the enforcement of this Act," and makes such policy and rules "final decisions" of the division. Final decisions by courts of original jurisdiction are nowhere tolerated, not even when the validity of their rules are challenged; nor are rulings by administrative agencies. Such a provision as encompassed in the bill would deny the right to challenge policies or rules promulgated by the Division of Campaign Finance, even when such rules are arbitrary and capricious. |