Mr. ADAMS. There is no question about it; and so you will present precisely what happened in the number of us who wanted the Hatch Act restriction removed for the municipal election, and we simply could not get it passed because there were too many people opposed to it. But I agree with that, and I don't see how you can maintain substantial portions of your electorate under a series of laws that have been directed toward preventing the Federal bureau access to choosing or maintaining the persons that were accomplished within bureaucracy, that purport to be and did not apply until you got a little proportion of work under municipal elections. You didn't have them prevail.

Mr. HOGAN. I would in response to that statement, I would say that Congressman Nelsen with his helpers probably said that did not occur, and that is nonpartisan.

He fought long and hard for nonpartisan sanction elections and I think quite frankly that had you had nonpartisan elections in the District of Columbia you would not have been talking about it at this time, about the upper limits, because I think a nonpartisan election, I think you probably would agree that generally your limitations wouldn't be as serious a problem. And not only that, but you would be or would have all of the voluntary help, and the participation of the Federal and local employees that-would not you agree?

Mr. WELSH. I understand the argument and I feel closely to it. My concern and the union's concern is the District of Columbia making the rule process work.

I think in fact what is going to occur is that after the first election even though it may retain the ability of partisan reelection, that you will in fact find a reorganization of parties. They will put a nonpartisan label on their operations for purposes of municipal elections, and that you will not find the two major parties competing in the District of Columbia after this first time, but there is a proliferation of other parties. And I suspect that this will happen.

I think it takes a little time unless this Hatch Act situation which, in fact, is clarified.

The tragedy is that the janitor in the school building can be a precinct chairman and participate in the Democratic primary. The janitor down at the City Hall cannot do so and it is just a problem of government employees having nongovernment employee status. It is foolish how the Act is applied and it doesn't apply to educational people. It has no relationship nationally or in the District of Columbia to logic and it is increasingly a problem nationally.

It is just the sort of problem that comes to the surface in the very people. it has no relationship nationally or in the District of Columbia

STUDY OF 1974 ELECTIONS

Mr. HOGAN. As you know Mr. Welsh, the requirement of this bill is that there will be hearings after the 1974 elections looking to the operation of how this election procedure worked-all the procedures that took place during the election, how the candidates comported themselevs, this sort of thing.

It would appear to me that probably there would be some support for your position here of liberalizing the upper limits to see how they

worked in this particular election because obviously the local Council will change the procedures once they change the law, once this election is over; and they will have this wealth of examination of all of the things that went on during this election with which to build upon and it would appear to me that having some of the problems that have occurred by reason of differing points of view, that you would find some support on the minority side for legislating the limits.

Mr. WELSH. I think that when one adds up the fact of the restrictions to be placed on corporations and unions, if that is the way the Committee goes, when one adds up the fact the overall restriction on any individual or committee aggregate contribution, when one adds the restriction on the individual or committee's restriction to an individual candidate, you know, in the full disclosure aspect of this, that this so-called $100,000 limit on a city-wide election is sort of an artificial fact in terms of election reform and in terms of the public's protection-protection to the public and which should be the prime responsibility of those considering this participation.

Then the question becomes, is it adequate, do we have an artificially low level to permit the full communication with the voters and full organization of a new political life in the District.

That is essentially what we are doing in this selection.

Mr. HOGAN. You have your political action committees which I gather voluntarily collects by way of check-off by the union members

Mr. WELSH. We would like to have the check-off in the District of Columbia.

We think probably the only union in the District is the Teamsters. We do not have it but we do through other kinds of solicitation.

If you could give us a check-off in the District of Columbia, we would be delighted.

Mr. HOGAN. You have a political education committee as well as the political action committee?

Mr. WELSH. No, sir.

We have a voluntary committee that receives voluntary contributions from members and their family and files it, under the provision of the 1971 Federal Disclosure Act, in reports to the General Accounting Office and the House and Senate. This committee is made up of officers and of the others on the national union, formally constituted with their bylaws.

They make a determination with regard to contributions that are put out and set forth various kinds of procedures within the Federal law for collecting voluntary contributions.

Our political action program which involves both our legislative and our educational training for political action goes under the generic name of PEOPLE, and part of that work that is directly related to the membership is financed out of the treasury money in terms of training programs or legislative bulletins and so on.

Mr. HOGAN. That is nonpartisan?

Mr. WELSH. Nonpartisan, and that is not used in terms of a political action.

LOBBYING

Mr. HOGAN. Congressman Nelsen is interested in putting a provision in the bill on lobbying.

Do you have any?

Mr. WELSH. I listened to your question earlier.

My only judgment that I could give to the Committee, I think obviously the District should have a well drafted and well drawn lobbying division.

Whether or not this is the vehicle for giving the very urgency of getting some ground rules for conducting this election I just-I am not in a position to say.

I would hope that if in fact it is proposed and that it does not become a point of contention between the House and the Senate, and so on, and delay the passage of the bill but certainly as a basic principle the union would support such.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. HOGAN. Finally, Congressman Gude has asked that individuals such as yourself who appear here would either comment now or send your comments in on the provision of the conflict of interest that appeared in Congressman Fraser's bill and they also appear in Senator Mathias'.

Mr. WELSH. I would like to send those in and submit them later to the Committee.

Mr. HOGAN. I am sure he would appreciate it very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you so much.

FINANCE LIMITATION

Mr. WASHINGTON. I would like for a moment to see if we can get some impression of this modest increase.

As I followed your material-your submission-you had $147,675, that is, the aggregate for five months and approximately for the additional two months, two-fifths of that.

Am I erring on the high side, $70,000, if we ran a media campaign, three-week campaign before the primary that would be $64,929; and media campaign after the primary for the general election of three weeks, that would be another $64,929-I must confess I am pretty poor with numbers but I get $347,619 as a sum base on your presentation today?

Mr. WELSH. Right.

Mr. WASHINGTON. Is that the kind of

Mr. WELSH. At least I followed your addition and I would thinkMr. WASHINGTON. That is a modest increase that we are talking about.

Mr. WELSH. I do not want to belabor the point, but any campaign as it develops shifts the resources and decides to go in one direction or another and if we are talking about instead of $200,000 limitation, $175,000 limitation, I think that would be a modest increase.

Mr. WASHINGTON. So, in other words, were we to keep the same structure, that is, per single campaign, your view would be that it ought to be about $175,000 per single campaign?

Mr. WELSH. I do not know the point to which you are pressing me. I am not sure of the difference between $175,000 and $200,000 or $225,000 or $150,000. My point really is

Mr. WASHINGTON. I am simply trying to get a floor.
The record has to be pretty clear.

Mr. WELSH. No. I would think something greater than $150,000 and less than $250,000 would be realistic for giving this District the chance to expand its political muscle, find out exactly what the dimensions are when you are running a contested city-wide campaign for a candidate.

Mr. WASHINGTON. You do share my view it is important that the record contains some material, some facts to support that level and that is why I am pushing the question.

Mr. WELSH. That is why I brought the data I brought with me and your calculation based upon that data has some justification.

What I am also saying is that in terms of all the factors in the bill, protecting the public interest, the disclosure factor, the individual limit factor, the corporate factors, these factors I think on the overall limitation on the campaign is the least significant of the factors in the bills in terms of protecting the public interest, in terms of a free, open, fully participatory campaign.

Mr. WASHINGTON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you so much, Mr. Welsh, for your expert theory and broad testimony and, in return for that, I will not ask you the $64.000 question.

Our next witness is Mr. Bert Hall, candidate for Ward 7 council

man.

This man brings to our witness table a life's work in the service in the community and one to have been proudly associated with, who has been a most valuable citizen not only with respect to private employment but as a citizen living in the northern part of our city.

Mr. HALL. I appreciate that.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Bert. We are very pleased to receive your testimony.

STATEMENT OF BERT S. HALL, JR., CANDIDATE FOR D.C. CITY

COUNCIL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House of Representatives, Committee on the District of Columbia, I appear before you today to express my views on the impact of campaign spending on elections in the District of Columbia. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here this morning.

We must be mindful of the fact that enormous amounts of monies are spent each election year on elections throughout the country.

I am aware that it is very costly to run an election and to run for an elective office. We must always keep in mind the basic democratic philosophy that our country is predicated upon, we must also be aware that the best possible selection must be made for the elected positions in our city.

FINANCE LIMITATIONS

In order to achieve this goal, we must make it possible for the voter to amass as much information as possible on the issues and the candidates. In this day of political cynicism and voter apathy, it becomes imperative for each candidate seeking an elective office to find and use creative and dynamic avenues of eliciting voter participation and support. While I am sure none of us want to see repeated the abuses and misuse of resources as has taken place recently in our political process, neither do I believe that any of us would wish to see both the voter and the candidate hamstrung by unrealistic and overly restrictive campaign financing regulations.

For example, I would venture to say that a ward candidate could conceivably incur higher expenditures in his campaign for the use of radio and television, than those estimated on the Committee's "Sample Campaign Budget for a Six Month Campaign for Mayor".

In this city where even the activities of our highest city officials often get overshadowed in the swirl of foreign affairs, Watergate, wheat deals and ITT, what chance would a ward candidate have in getting significant coverage without paying for it?

Therefore, I submit that $20,000 is unrealistic to mount a comprehensive campaign for a position on the City Council.

Additionally, the proposed ceiling would drastically inhibit the participation of the youth of this city in this election. In most cases, our youthful constituents are from poor to moderate income families and are forced to seek some type of employment to be able to go back to school in the fall.

As opposed to earlier testimony before this Committee that large numbers of youthful volunteers will be able to supplant hired staff persons to run a campaign, I would like to state before this Committee. that the financial ceiling imposed must allow for the use of hired staff, be they young or old.

It is difficult for me to understand the reasoning of some who acknowledge it will be necessary to pay for services derived from the business and communication sectors, but at the same time would severely restrict a candidate's ability to pay token compensation to the people who work in his campaign.

EXPENDITURE CEILING

I would recommend that the ceiling for campaign expenditures for ward candidates for the City Council not exceed 75 cents per person in the voting age population of the ward in which the person is a candidate. This would permit a candidate to address himself to all potential voters in the ward thereby enhancing the opportunity of broader citizen participation in our electoral process.

I am sure that most of you will agree that the entire Nation will focus on Washington, D.C. in September to see how the Home Rule will be used by one of the cities in the country with a predominantly black population. It is imperative that those of us here in D.C. carry out this new mandate from the Congress in the most efficient and effective way possible.

31-517-74-vol. 2- 8