Such acts would probably constitute denial of due process guaranteed by the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, or at least, encompass abuses or discretion.

Perhaps, a wiser provision would require the Division to discharge its functions consistent with the provisions of the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act. Assuming, arguendo, no constitutional question can arise from section 301 (f) as presently proposed, it would seem that the interests of justice and fair play militate against any agency being placed beyond the pail of administrative and judicial

review.

FINANCE LIMITATIONS

No doubt the most troublesome of all provisions of the bill are contained in title IV-Finance Limitations, limiting the kinds and sizes of contributions from individuals and persons, as contained in sections 401(a) and (b) as well as the limitations on expenditures set forth in section 402 of the bill.

To the average citizen of the District of Columbia, perhaps unknowledgeable or unsophisticated respecting the gigantic costs to which campaign financing have soared, the general limitations "individual" contributions ranging from maximums of $100 for a board of education ward candidate to $1,000 for mayor or Delegate candidate, and contributions of "persons" ranging from $200 to $2,000 are rather incomprehensible figures.

NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Certainly, no one can deny the necessity for legislation "to regulate certain political campaign finance practices," not only in Federal elections throughout our States, but now in the District of Columbia as well, where a new found enfranchisement has been won. Suffice it to say that conduct and practices disclosed in Federal elections dictate that the electorate must be protected from criminal conduct, conspiracies, sharp practices, and incomprehensible campaign spending.

Although the time allotted to peruse the proposed outline as contained in H.R. 14754, and to conduct a modicum of research has been brief, it is nevertheless abundantly clear that legislation, such as proposed in the District of Columbia Campaign Finance Reform Act is of utmost necessity. There can be no question but that where integrity in politics does not exist, it must be established, and where it has become tainted or eroded it must be restored.

It is my sincere belief that with some major amendments I shall propose, H.R. 14754 can serve to build a deep-seated pride in home. rule in the District of Columbia.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

If I may proceed to comment on or analyze the respective titles of the bill, I have no quarrel with provisions contained in Title I—short title, definitions, nor Title II, financial disclosures.

Although the sums proposed are maximums, it is probably not unrealistical to conclude that the vast majority of citizens of the District of Columbia will not fall within these maximum contribution

limitations. It may not be unrealistic to expect that the vast majority of contributions from "individual" contributors will fall within the category of $10 or less, taking into consideration that a substantial percentage of citizens of voting age in the Nation's Capital, if not the majority, are still employed at the bottom of the economic ladder, at Grades 1 through 4. To these people, such contributions must be startling.

EXPENDITURES LIMIT

It must be even more starting for the vast majority of citizens to comprehend the proposed limitations on expenditures ranging from $10,000 for a Ward Council or Board of Elections candidate to $100,000 for the Mayor or Delegate candidacy.

Moreover, if this logic be valid, the mere mention of such sums proposed in the limitations for contributions and expenditures must be frightening even to some political candidates. For too long, a substantial number of citizens all over our land have been forced to vote for candidates not of their choice; but of big business, special interest, the wealthy, and the candidate who could amass the greatest amount of contributions.

This process is indeed inimical to the concept of "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

It is not enough to grant home rule to the citizens of the District of Columbia. They need more. They need the opportunity to enjoy a constitutional right to candidates of their choice, candidates from among the poor, as well as the rich, from among the black, as well as the white, and from the many different types of minorities living in the Nation's Capital.

The national trend of campaign financing during the 1972 congressional elections, totaling more than $77 million, does not allow for too many poor, nor too many minorities to participate in the electoral process as candidates for office. When a senatorial victor requires a. maximum of over $2 million in contributions and expenditures, and a House victor requires a maximum of over $300,000; or even when the average for the Senate candidate is viewed as over $400,000, or when the average for the House candidate is viewed as over $55,000, it is clear that a poor person or a person of a minority race can hardly win elections in our country.

Especially is this true when it appears that of $62.3 million, $21.7 million or 35 percent was contributed by 41,600 individuals who gave over $100 and over half of that number gave more than $500; when $16.5 million or 26 percent was contributed by political and special interest committees, in amounts of more than $100. When $19.6 million or 32 percent reflects contributions of $100 or less, and $44 million or 7 percent constituted net loans of more than $100.

It can hardly be expected that such a proportionate financing will be forthcoming across the board in the District of Columbia. Yet, equal justice and equal opportunity demand that serious candidates be allowed to exercise an opportunity to run in primaries and run in general elections. These same precepts require that the electorate be allowed such choices. It appears that the only solution to these serious problems is to establish some form of public assistance to finance political campaigns.

PUBLIC FINANCING

Public financing of political campaigns is a growing concept. Common Cause has worked long and hard for the concept, so have many senators and congressmen. Senate Report No. 93-689, to accompany S. 3044, 93rd Congress, was reported on February 21, 1974 and on April 11, the Senate passed S. 3044, "to amend the Federal Election Compaign Act of 1971 to provide for public financing of primary and general election campaigns for Federal elective office, and to amend certain other provisions of law relating to the financing and conduct of such campaigns," by an overwhelming vote of 53 to 32.

The key provisions of S. 3044 allowing matching funds for House and Senate candidates, and restricting expenditures within fixed or ascertainable limits are indeed too high for the various offices of the District of Columbia. However, the principles and philosophy embodied in that bill can serve as guidelines to scale down the requirements of eligibility for matching funds, as well as the limitations of expenditures. Moreover, this is also necessary in order to be consistent with the contribution restrictions and limitations of expenditures proposed by H.R. 14754.

No specific formula for public financing is here proposed. Time did now allow for such exactness. This distinguished Committee however has ample talented staff to draft appropriate guidelines for public financing of political campaigns in the District of Columbia. It is respectfully submitted, absent public financing, "taxation without representation" will still be a reality in the District of Columbia for many people.

AMENDMENTS PROPOSED

In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that H.R. 14754 be amended in the following manner:

1. To provide for the right of review from decisions of the Division of Campaign Finance, contrary to the proposed "final" decision concept contained in section 301 (f) of title III; and

2. To add a new title dealing with public financing of serious political candidates.

Again many thanks Mr. Chairman, and Members of this august Committee for allowing me to present my views on these very vital subjects. I hope to have been of some assistance to the Committee. If. I can be of further service please do not hesitate to call upon me.

Mr. REES. Fine. I certainly appreciate your contribution, Judge Alexander.

I will turn the meeting over to Mr. Washington. Unfortunately, I am also serving on the Banking and Currency Committee and we are dealing with the Omnibus Housing bill of 1974, which is worth quite a few million dollars to the District of Columbia, and also, the 26 districts in California and I did want to be there for the markup.

So, I will turn the Committee over to our Chief Counsel and, again, thank you for your contribution.

Judge ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

PUBLIC FINANCING

Mr. WASHINGTON. I might say for the Judge the question relating to public financing is now pending in our Subcommittee on Revenue and Financial Affairs headed by the distinguished Member from California, Congressman Rees.

The matter is receiving attention.

CONTRIBUTIONS BY LABOR AND OTHERS

I would like to have your views on whether or not corporations and unions should be able or be allowed to contribute campaign contributions from their treasuries?

Judge ALEXANDER. If I recall correctly the proposed legislation disallows that kind of contribution.

In view of my philosophy concerning the necessity for allowing serious candidates from whatever strata of economy to run for office I would concur with the provisions of the bill as drafted and deny such organizations the power to contribute to the contributions of political candidates.

The 1972 study reveals that more elections were won by people who amassed the greatest amount of money than in any other fashion. So, it seems a bit illogical to go through that heavy contributions have no significant effect on the outcome of political election.

There are very few candidates in the Senate or in the House who won after having received a smaller amount of funds than the victor.

FINANCE LIMITATIONS

Mr. WASHINGTON. You started out by saying you are not a candidate now, but would you care to share with us your views on those limitations on the office of Mayor, Chairman of the Council and Members of the Council, and the additional question of whether or not limitations should be for calendar year or for each election.

Under the existing proposal, that is, the legislation proposed by our subcommittee which I indicated was unanimously reported, there was with respect to the Mayor a limitation of $100,000 per campaign, that is, $100,000 for the primary and $100,000 for the general election.

Would you be opposed to a separate $200,000 assuming the levels of $200,000 for the calendar year or do you think it is more judicious to have it at $100,000 per campaign or whether $100,000 is too high.

Judge ALEXANDER. I would suggest $100,000 per campaign is too high.

It certainly precludes a number of probably good candidates in the future from even attempting to run, wondering where and from what kind of source one could get that kind of financing.

With respect to the question of contribution between primaries and general election, obviously one should have sufficient funds to participate in both.

If one is a victor in the primaries, however, the maximum amount can be divided by one-half, so that the candidate would have sufficient funds for the primary as well as the general election.

BOARD OF ELECTIONS

Mr. WASHINGTON. One last question, and that is, have you had occasion to read title III of the Subcommittee proposal that establishes a Division of the Board of Election?

Judge ALEXANDER. The Campaign Financing Division?

Mr. WASHINGTON. Yes.

Judge ALEXANDER. Yes, sir.

I took issue with the provision which would deny a right of review for policies and rules promulgated by that Division.

Mr. WASHINGTON. That is what I am interested in.

Are you asserting it is not a Division because the Board cannot review its recommendations?

Judge ALEXANDER. I am asserting that it is dangerous for any agency or subagency or part of an agency to have the final conclusive opinion with respect to any matter.

Mr. WASHINGTON. Finally, your view on whether or not the Board of Governors of the unified bar should make the two additional appointments.

Judge ALEXANDER. Well, obviously this kind of appointment would have to be made by someone, and I would think that perhaps a unified bar could serve, providing they are residents of the District of Columbia, a good service by being made available by the legislature to be appointed to such office.

Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you.

Mr. Hogan.

Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, and I want to welcome you, Judge Alexander.

Judge ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. Hogan.

Mr. HOGAN. Unfortunately, minority Members are all involved in very conflicting meetings today, mainly, with the Banking and Currency Committee, and the Judiciary Committee.

We have a number of our Members on the Banking and Currency Committee with the Chairman had to excuse himself to attend.

Continuing on, as far as the appointment of members by the unified bar, it would be difficult it seems to me to have the unified bar restricted in their appointive power to members of the residents of the District of Columbia.

As you well know, I think there are something like 22,000 members of the unified bar, any they come from the entire metropolitan area. Unless you set up a special committee of the unified bar that would be comprised only of D.C. residents, it seems to me it would be difficult to reach the result that you are suggesting.

Judge ALEXANDER. I would suggest that home rule is particularly and peculiarly available to citizens or residents of the State, county, or political jurisdiction wherein they reside.

It does not seem feasible nor does it seem wise to have someone having any administrative jurisdiction respecting voters in a particular political jurisdiction if that person is not a resident of that jurisdiction.