Do I understand now from what you have said to us that as a minimum while the $100,000 limit per campaign is not acceptable to you, $150,000 minimum on a campaign in a two-campaign series would be acceptable to you.

Mr. WELSH. Congressman, we do not have a figure that is either acceptable or not acceptable to us because we are not in the business of running the industry-wide as a union.

The point that I am trying to make is it seems to me that in the wisdom of the Committee to err on the side of being-not having the resources to conduct the kind of campaign and none of us know what will develop and how the issues will develop and how involved the Committee will become, and how much free time on TV as against how much time you have to buy, it may be perfectly practicable that there would be all kinds of free time made available by the media in town. for candidates to fully represent their views and that you do not have to buy television.

On the other hand, it may not occur that way. I just think for the Congress to write into the statute a minimal limitation, the first time out in the District of Columbia is erring on the wrong side, and that something more liberal and modest increase in that would be desirable to assure that there is room to fully reach and involve the community through all media, all devices, certainly phone banks is a way to solve the communications.

It costs money to staff and run a phone bank. There are many other costs of that type.

HATCH ACT

We do not know what restrictions under the Hatch Act and how closely monitored that will be.

By the way, some of the Federal agencies are monitoring the Hatch Act and are involved throughout the country. I am very concerned that there will be a very intensive monitoring of this election in the District of Columbia, so I think it is wise to take these factors into consideration and not err on the low side because in my judgment the real issue the committee is trying to get at is the issue of total participation, and an issue of full disclosure and some limits to individual and community contributions.

These we support but an overall limitation on the campaign that errs on the low side I think is a danger to the committee and the committee ought to look at it.

Mr. FAUNTROY. One of the problems the committee has had are those who find our figures low-are low to suggested civic figures which they feel might be modest-a modest increase and the like, and one of the reasons for having a hearing is to hear from those who have given considerable attention to the subject matter as you have with a view to coming up with some specific recommendations, and that is why we have sort of pressed

Mr. WELSII. Congressman, the only thing I can suggest in a very practical political sense is for one to examine one's own campaign situation, and if you were going to run in a very hotly contested primary in the District of Columbia against two or three very intense candidates, and you were going to run in a highly contested campaign this fall, which I don't think is likely, it would be possible-and, you

were sitting down with your staff trying to be sure that there were adequate resources to get your record across, then you would only want to, in this situation, be assured that you were not unduly constrained.

I agree with the counsel a while ago who suggested that a lower limitation helps an incumbent.

I think we can prove that if we went around the country and because of the kinds of name identification and exposure that an incumbent has in an election, but I would not want to advise one as a professional person suggesting what you need for a campaign, that you err on the low side in this kind of relative unknown situation.

If we had had the experience of three or four major campaigns for Mayor and the City Council we would know a great deal more about it but it seems to me, and this is what the hearing is before the Board of Elections, and some are to be after the experience, we come back and look at it, but that is what I am attempting to point out; and if you want to figure from me, I will say somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000, it would be adequate.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you.

D.C. DELEGATE

I appreciate your reference to my own experience because I do bring some bias to the committee, having run at large over the same area that the candidates will have to run, having won a primary and spending $32.000 in the general election where all of us again were running at the same nonincumbency posture, with an additional $50,000 which came up for a 6-month campaign, a little less than $83,000 with some television, albeit small, and for that reason I thought our consultants' view of $100,000 would be quite reasonable.

LABOR AND OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS

I have just one other question and that has to do with the question of corporate contribution and contributions from union treasuries. And I was not clear because I was absorbed in your very thorough campaign breakdown, but you probably touched on this in your discussion here.

Would you care to address yourself to that?

Mr. WELSH. I think our view as a union is we should be treated equally with corporations.

We should be treated equally in terms of not just corporations and unions but self-employed professionals who I think deserve some attention in this regard, and as an attorney or an accountant who decides what might be called a volunteer basis, he is going to give some substantial time to a campaign, is making a very significant contribution, and we haven't learned how to reach that problem under Federal or, as in this statute, the garbage worker on the truck is not free to doing work-working hours of his week to stop earning money and contribute a few hours of his time as an attorney-as an attorney in private practice.

So, the garbage worker has to find ways he can make a voluntary contribution.

He has in the past done that both through contributions in the union treasury where that was permitted by law or not permitted by law, but through a voluntary political action committee.

I think the wisdom of this committee-we have no difficulty of supporting it as long as there is equal treatment and would find the kind of constraints we are under with Federal election to be reasonably good but we would also want to urge the committee to take a careful look at this question of how valuable is a man's time who is a professional that, in fact, can leave a law practice or an accounting practice or some other kind of practice where he is relatively self-employed and how do we waive that in terms of contribution.

That is a very touchy problem.

Mr. ADAMS. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. FAUNTROY. Be happy.

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Welsh, are you in your testimony this morning representing the basic position of the AFL-CIO on how the matter of volunteer and volunteer-type organization should be handled? Mr. WELSH. I am not sure, Congressman Adams.

I do not speak for the AFL-CIO.

I speak for this international union.

I am trying to probe and give guidance to the Committee on this question because I think it is a very difficult and complex question that we still have not solved either in Federal elections or in this election.

Mr. ADAMS. That is why I asked you the question because this was one of the things that bothered the Subcommittee because we received-I do not want to say conflicting testimony-but we never received definite testimony from groups involved as to whether the language in the bill was satisfactory or unsatisfactory or if there was a suggested amendment to it.

We were particularly worried about the two things that appeared in the middle of your statement which was volunteer time. It should be-it can be accounted for and campaign limitations both as to limits on an association or a group, for example, does your union have an affiliated independent group similar to COPE or do you participate in COPE?

Mr. WELSH. No. We have our own independent political action organization called PEOPLE and has not only a program of volunteer political time unrelated to a man's job but which individuals contribute on their own and are not paid for and it has a volunteer fund to which individual members of the union and their families make contributions for use primarily in Federal elections.

Mr. ADAMS. Now, are you satisfied under this draft that came out of the Senate that the organizations you mentioned can function in the selection?

Mr. WELSH. Yes.

Mr. ADAMS. As one of the things?

Mr. WELSH. Yes.

Mr. ADAMS. Because that was one of the things that concerned me at the time of the drafting, and I offered certain amendments in the Subcommittee because I have a great feeling we do not want by this kind of legislation to shut off sources of people and money in political campaigns because it is difficult enough to get someone to participate

anyway.

Mr. WELSH. I am satisfied, congressman, that we can function with that Committee in terms of its program.

VOLUNTEER SERVICES

Mr. ADAMS. Now, your concern, however, which brings me to the next point about size of the limits on that type of activity and whether or not volunteer time is counted in against the limits.

Is that correct?

Mr. WELSH. I am raising this problem, congressman. I don't believe the statute as I remember reading it requires reporting of volunteer time.

Mr. ADAMS. We tried to exclude that, but if we have not I would like to have you and those associated with you working with our staff and in your testimony now presented that kind of thing because we have had some experience with that in other States. And when you start trying to place a value on voluntary services as I mentioned in the Subcommittee, sometimes you have the little old lady who wants to participate and is down there and she may actually be a negative factor but you want to, you know, you can't-do you put her down at $2.50 or at zero, and so on, and I want to assure you in this bill we do not shut off those kinds of people.

Mr. WELSH. I will submit, if we think there are any difficulties with that, congressman, we will submit them within the next few days or two and a memorandum to the subcommittee outlining changes that we think

Mr. ADAMS. All right. I have given you the lower end. I have problems with this.

The problem I have at the outset is the so-called loan executive. You mentioned the self-employed lawyer. Any large corporation or any group that has a great deal of money can do this, and this has been done in various elections where such people whose jobs are sufficient they can participate for greater periods of time, some all day, and we were trying, in effect, to put some kind of disclosure on that.

Mr. FAUNTROY. I am not certain we have succeeded in ascertaining what your position is on that.

Mr. WELSH. Our position would be congressman this-let me preface it by this point: this is completely not yet resolved as far as the application of Federal law in 1971, the Disclosure and Expenditure Act, is concerned.

Anyone that has filed a report under that law cannot help but understand that it is still a difficult and complex area. There continues to be problems arising in this area over what, in fact, constitutes a contribution in kind.

As I understand it, in the Federal Disclosure law of 1971, Federal elections, it is provided that a contribution in kind such as you describe of loaning a corporate executive to a campaign for a period of time must be reported on a special form under that law. It is the fair market value of such services; I believe, in terms of handling such contribution in kind, that is a valid way to proceed and follow that pattern in the District of Columbia reporting procedures. I would only say to the committee that there continue to be difficulties in that area that have not been resolved and which may end up, in fact, in litigation.

Mr. FAUNTROY. But that is the best solution I am aware of.

ENFORCEMENT

Mr. ADAMS. What we have suggested here in the Subcommittee bill is that we let the monitoring division put out regulations and in fact as GAO has done, that deals basically with an employment factor. In other words, if persons are actually working in a campaign when they would otherwise be doing their employment, that is kind of contribution; whereas if they are doing it in their off time or are not employed, then these kinds of contributions are not considered to be the reportable kind.

If you have an additional language or something you wish to comment to, all of us are concerned about it.

Mr. WELSHI. Well, I would say that in my judgment the time of the committee would be wasted for this first election to follow in effect the procedures that are established and followed under the Federal Disclosure Act of 1971 and the procedures that have been set up by the Clerk of the House and the Senate and GAO for reporting in kind contribution.

I would like to have our attorneys review that portion of this bill so we may be able to help you clarify or it could perhaps be clarifying language in the report.

I am only hesitant in the sense that I know it is a very complex area and perhaps the formulation that you have outlined and stated in the report of the committee would be a valid one.

This would certainly permit the members of our union in the District of Columbia to conduct the kind of political participation that they would normally do on their off hours as volunteers, not as

Mr. ADAMS. Well, I would just conclude my questioning by saying we would appreciate having that kind of information because I find in these kinds of laws that most people talk a lot about reform and campaign spending laws and so on.

They are all for it but when you get down to the specifics of where you slice the line, no matter what kind of bill you come up with, people do not like it.

So, if we are going to end up with it, my philosophy is for this first election, why we need your help and that of other unions and those involved in corporations who want to be in most municipal elections, as in the past.

You could do what you wanted to in terms of in kind contributions and you could do what you wanted to in terms of money contributions and disclosure which was allowed for.

I have some sympathy with that position because I have never seen in local elections, I have never been in all of them in this country where everybody comes rushing in to make their contribution, generally, you have to go asking, and several times, so, if you could give us that I would appreciate it.

HATCH ACT

Mr. WELSH. I would only say that in terms of priorities I think for this first election the kind of Hatch Act problems I ought to outline are much more of a constraint on this problem than the in kind contribution.

We have had a serious problem there and nobody should