Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

ing the entire political process. The test of the candidate should not be how much he or she can raise from large contributors, or how much can be spent to blitz the voters with 30-second spot commercials or yards of campaign posters.

The test should be where the candidate stands on the issues, the candidate's record and what kind of job can be done for the constituency that the candidate seeks to represent. It does not take vast sums to communicate a clear and effective message.

FINANCE DISCLOSURE

The Subcommittee bill, it seems to me, makes a sound and sensible effort to regulate campaign finance. Its disclosure requirements are not unduly burdensome, even to a ward campaign. Obviously, full disclosure of all manner of campaign contributions from all sources is the heart of the matter and absolutely essential. The proposed enforcement mechanism has sufficient independence to guarantee strict enforcement of the law.

FINANCE LIMITATIONS

Because I am a candidate for the City Council from a ward, I shall specifically direct my comments on campaign finance limitations to those requirements relating to ward races. It seems to me that the limitation of a contribution by an individual to a Ward Council candidate should be the same as for a ward candidate for the Board of Education. The Subcommittee bill proposes $200 for council candidates and $100 for school board candidates. I support the lower figure of $100 limitation on individual contributions in a single election. That figure is entirely reasonable and would allow a candidate some flexibility in raising funds, and at the same time require the candidate to establish a broad base of financial support.

EXPENDITURE LIMITATION

Similarly the Subcommittee bill differentiates between Ward Council and Ward School Board candidates in the matter of limitation of campaign expenses allowing the former to spend $20,000 in a single election while school board candidates are limited to $10,000.

I have assessed carefully the costs of running a campaign for City Council on the ward level and feel certain that a candidate can make an effective presentation of his or her qualifications and communicate positions on the issues well within the $10,000 ceiling imposed for School Board candidates. I therefore support that figure as a top limit to the ward race.

Higher ceiling expenditures would only encourage candidates to rely far too heavily on expensive media.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is urgently needed. I would hope that the District of Columbia could lead the way toward campaign reform. While there are some campaign finance requirements on the books now, they are inadequate for the Mayor and City Council races coming up.

But for this legislation to be effective, it must be enacted by Congress very soon so that candidates will know what standards are expected of them and begin to shape their campaign plans accordingly, and I believe it should certainly be retroactive to January 1 of

this year.

Again, I commend you for your efforts in considering comprehensive campaign reform and urge you to move rapidly to make it a reality for the District of Columbia.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you so very much, Mrs. Shackleton.

There are simply two questions which I would like to raise with you and then yield to counsel.

BOARD OF ELECTIONS

First, on the question of the responsibility of the monitoring and implementing of the campaign reform regulations.

Is it your view that the formulation in the Subcommittee bill of a division of the Board of Election which would have an independent judgment on the implementation of this aspect of the conduct of the elections would be one which would meet with your approval? Mrs. SHACKLETON. Yes, it would.

LABOR AND OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. FAUNTROY. The second question has to do with the matter of corporate and union contributions from the treasuries of these bodies to candidates.

As you know, the Subcommittee bill retains what is applied to Federal elections, namely, that while the unions and businesses may contribute or businessmen and women may contribute directly to the candidacy or corporately through special funds, they may not go into the treasuries of the businesses or the unions to support the candidacy of the choice of the leadership of the same.

What is your view on that question?

Mrs. SHACKLETON. Well, I agree with the Subcommittee's recommendation.

I also would call attention to the fact, however, that frequently unions form political action committees which I think are legal and certainly if the members of the unions have the opportunity to express their views and in their political action committees I see no reason why that is not permitted by Federal law and I should suppose that we should follow the same procedure here in the same manner. Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you.

Counsel.

BOARD OF ELECTIONS

Mr. WASHINGTON. I would like to, if I may, follow up on the question of the division.

Your statement says, the proposed enforcement mechanism have sufficient independence to guarantee strict enforcement of the law. Quite commendable.

When we had in our discussions with GAO, their view was that the enforcement should be vested in a single person rather than a board or a commission, because a decision oftentimes has to be made immedi

ately and having to get a quorum of a commission raises some problem. Furthermore, when you say division, with all due respect, the term "division" seems to suggest it is part of, subject to review and examination of, some other structure of Government.

As I read title III of this legislation, it is only subject to judicial review, and I think-and, it might invite confusion and competition within the same agency, and I would like you to comment on that, if you will?

Mrs. SHACKLETON. Well, I don't know how you select one person who could do this, and this is merely just reacting to your questionMr. WASHINGTON. Surely.

Mrs. SHACKLETON. I think you are on much firmer ground if you have a board who at least cannot be swayed compared with only one person, regardless of how partial or impartial that person is.

It is simply one opinion. If you changed administration, if you have anything else that that person might be more subject to, well, his judgment might not be as valuable as that of a 3-man board.

Mr. WASHINGTON. You would still have a board or a commission deciding policy, but the day-to-day dealings, the day-to-day affairs would be administered by the Executive Director's staff. It has been GAO's own experience in administering the Federal election campaign law that in their views it is vexatious, troublesome, to have a board or a commission, and that it should be strictly circumscribing the functions between the administrative board and a staff director or an executive director or a secretary to have the responsibility for administration of this kind of practice.

Their view has been that, without having one person responsible, they could not act as expeditiously as they would need to.

Mrs. SHACKLETON. Well, of course, GAO is a lot more experienced in this sort of thing than we in the previously voteless District of Columbia, so, if that is their view I would certainly accept it.

I felt, however, that this was a perfectly valid procedure and allowed a broader interpretation than perhaps the individual could get. Mr. WASHINGTON. Surely.

LABOR AND OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS

Finally, that takes us back to the question, I think it is important to get the record clear, Mr. Fauntroy raises which I am sure, and this is the prohibition or lack of prohibition against unions and corporations taking funds from these treasuries.

There the legislation does not prohibit a union from establishing systems committees, as it wishes, and still funneling substantial sums of money into a campaign.

Is it not really the test of the limitation, the amount the candidate can expend, which should be really carefully examined, be concerned with? Isn't it getting finances to a level that is not so high as to invite people to purchase an election but not so low as to prohibit a good candidate from getting the necessary exposure. However the source of money arises. I think the key point, and I hope you share this view, is that we ought to have an adequate level limitation.

Mrs. SHACKLETON. Well, I agree with that, and I think that the full disclosure aspect is really crucial, that if somebody knows such and such corporation is contributing vast amounts, I think that if that is

made available as public information that would certainly be a test of some kind of an aspersion on the candidate who accepted such contributions and also would cause, I think, quite a bit of

FINANCE LIMITATIONS

Mr. WASHINGTON. Sure, I think your earlier statement is commendable and that is it ought to be retroactive to January 1, but even money received in 1973-and since there were no elections should be a part of the money for the campaigns in 1974 because some people were running prior to January 1.

Mrs. SHACKLETON. I would be very glad to set it back to whenever it appeared the home rule bill was actually going to pass which I suppose was, say, it looked rather good starting last September or even a year ago, June; and I would be perfectly happy. I would agree with you this all should be brought out. I think it is very important.

There was one other item in the bill which I did not mention. It follows the idea that I had of having the School Board and the Ward Council limitations the same.

I think there was a similar item on a contribution by persons which I assume covers political action committees or other groups and again, I think the lower figure should be the one that is taken for both school boards and for the council candidate.

Mr. WASHINGTON. I think one reason, of course, is that school board elections are nonpartisan. Council elections are partisan and there are different responsibilities and expectations with respect to the twooffices.

Mrs. SHACKLETON. Well, I still do not really feel that makes that much distinction. Both have important offices. They are both presumably going after the same number of voters and trying to reach the same number of voters. So, the fact that there are partisan or nonpartisan matters does not seem to me to make that much difference. Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Adams.

Mr. ADAMS. I have no questions.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Hogan.

Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

LOBBYING

Mrs. Shackleton, Congressman Nelsen has indicated an interest in introducing an amendment to this bill that would control lobbying which would require registration, reporting, that kind of thing. Do you support that kind of thing?

Mrs. SHACKLETON. I would certainly support that kind of a provision, Mr. Hogan.

I do not know whether it would delay passage of the bill.

I think the only concern I might have and I am not sure whether this is a valid one, that it should not delay passage of this particularbill.

I would like to see that concept certainly included and whether in this bill or a later one it would be up to the people who were devising the strategy about getting the bill through. But I certainly and absolutely support that concept.

FINANCE LIMITATIONS

Mr. HOGAN. And, turning to your suggestion in your testimony that the limitation be reduced from $20,000, I think to $10,000

Mrs. SHACKLETON. Right.

Mr. HOGAN. Congressman Rees indicated that in his experience that incumbents tend to benefit from the lower limitation, and I think that is true in the District of Columbia by reason of their appointive government here, not only incumbents but former incumbents such as yourself might tend to benefit by reason of their name identification. Certainly the Council members have received substantial amounts of publicity in the last few years.

Do you not think that since there is reporting requirements of expenditure, well, not expenditure contribution, that perhaps at least initially for the first election that the higher limit would not be beneficial for those individuals who had not a name identification of some of these incumbents and then if the experience of this election proves the wisdom of reducing that limitation that that limitation can perhaps be reduced?

Mrs. SHACKLETON. Well, I feel that as Mr. Joseph who is a brand new candidate, and he does not seem to be troubled by the effect of having reached the community, I felt that this was much too high and he, I suppose, up until now had farily limited exposure except some of the work he has done. So I would not feel that one could not reach the voters in a ward in the same time allowed.

After all, we have three more months before the primary and two months before the election.

And, there is plenty of opportunity to reach every voter using less expensive methods than blitzing them with media, and therefore I would feel that it was important to keep the limitation down, that I think $10,000 is absolutely tops that would be needed, and I could visualize reaching all the voters for far less than that.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. HOGAN. And, finally, Congressman Gude is interested in obtaining from each of the witnesses appearing their reaction to conflict of interest provisions in the Fraser bill which are identical to the provisions which appear in the Senate bill introduced by Senator Mathias. If you are not familiar I will be happy to give you a copy and you can give us your

Mrs. SHACKLETON. Generally dealing with the lobbying legislation? Mr. HOGAN. No. It deals with the conflict of interest provision for those who are elected and assume office.

Mrs. SHACKLETON. I would fully support any provision that would involve conflict of interest.

Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mrs. Shackleton.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you so much.

Mrs. SHACKLETON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Adams. Nice to see you.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Our next witness is Mr. William Welsh, of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »