Mr. Chairman and Members, I commend you on your intent to regulate campaign spending, and sincerely hope that you will give serious consideration to some of the aspects of this testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

WARD CAMPAIGNS

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you so much, Mr. Hall, for that very fine suggestion on how we might deal with the ward races and I wonder if on the basis of your formulation here of 75 cents per person of voting age in say Ward 7, what would that come out to?

Mr. HALL. The cost would be $42,831.75.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Now, that would be for each campaign?

Mr. HALL. That would be for the-that would be the maximum they could spend in each campaign.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Each campaign, and conceivably a ward contained

Mr. HALL. We are basing this on the same assumption that you had a six-month period.

Mr. FAUNTROY. So, this would be doubled?

Mr. HALL. What it would actually be is half, it would be less than half, 6 months and 2 months between the general election, so it would be a little less than half.

We based that on the 6-month proposal that we have here.

You see the voting age population is about 57,000 people, and it is our view and the view of some of our other citizens in that area that we should try to reach all the voters, not just the registered voters in the campaign.

Mr. FAUNTROY. I am impressed with that although, as you know or may know, our formulation would provide $40,000 on a 6-month basis inasmuch as-well, $20,000 per election and at one time the committee had considered the possibility of allowing the candidate to spend within the overall limitation of $40,000 a larger amount or on one or the other campaign, depending upon which he felt he needed more money to conduct.

Would you find that generalization of the spending limitations with that caveat of being able to spend more in one or the other campaign more to your liking?

Mr. HALL. I would think, Mr. Chairman, that you are going to have to spend more, you know, in a primary election because I do not feel that 6 months is going to be the period of time in which a candidate will be running for office after this election.

I think it is going to be longer than that and I think you will have to spend more money up to the primary than between the primary and the general election.

Mr. FAUNTROY. I see.

Well, I just wanted to indicate to you that your idea is well taken. The figures that you have suggested are not far out of line from the committee's present formulation, save the present formulation does not permit us to shift within the elections the total allocation made.

LABOR CONTRIBUTIONS

I have just a second question on the matter of allowing business, corporate and union contributions from their treasuries.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I am in agreement with what the committee proposes on that.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you.

Counsel.

LOBBYING

Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Hall, do you have any views on lobbying provisions in this bill, calling for registration, reporting of contribution or income from individuals who hire the lobbyists and report of the expenditure?

Mr. HALL. I think there should be a registration provision.

I have not given a lot of thought to how that should be done but I think that there should be a registration.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. HOGAN. Turning to the conflict of interest provision there, Congressman Fraser introduced and Senator Mathias introduced a bill that has a conflict of interest applying to individuals once elected. Would you favor a provision such as that in the House bill?

Mr. HALL. I think there should be some kind of provision but as you probably know there are some difficulties with that-with the newly elected Council being able to be employed, otherwise, and some of their previous employment, but I think that can be worked out at a later date and I think there should be one, and I think the Council-I do not want to have councilmen, you know, not voting on 15 different issues because of some relationship of their family or something to something else because you can end up with a councilman never voting or taking a position on the Council. But I think some form of conflict of interest could be worked out.

I am not that familiar.

I have read this very hurriedly because I did not get it until late and I dealt mostly with the election process.

Mr. HOGAN. I gather you agree with Mr. Welsh if the committee is going to set a limit that errs of liberal leadership to this personal election.

Mr. HALL. Yes.

Mr. HOGAN. And, I do not know, is this your first political venture? Mr. HALL. Yes.

Hr. HOGAN. Now, do you operate from that position? Do you feel that you may have some greater obstacle in the sense that perhaps voter identification will be a problem with you that you will want to overcome in getting your program and views over to the voter in Ward 7?

Mr. HALL. Well, I think that we have got to get to the issues, you know, not just get the name.

First, I think the issues should be a part of the campaign and I think it is going to be taken in this first selection because of the lack of sophistication of voters and other reasons.

It is going to take more money to do these things even though personal contact is good. But you are not going to reach everybody by personal contact.

I do not think there is anybody in the city that can reach 50,000 to 70.000 people during an election, personally.

Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Hall.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you so very much, Mr. Hall.

All right, our next witness is Mr. James S. Featherstone, Jr., candidate for Chairman, City Council and, like Mr. Hall, a native Washingtonian and former classmate of mine.

I want to make it very clear I am not saying anything.
We are very happy to have you here, Mr. Featherstone.

STATEMENT OF JAMES S. FEATHERSTONE, JR., CANDIDATE FOR CHAIRMAN, CITY COUNCIL

Mr. FEATHERSTONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I would like to thank you for the privilege of appearing before you today.

It is my understanding that my purpose in being here today is to give my personal reactions to your Committee's recent efforts to design, develop and bring forth a comprehensive campaign spending bill that would be applicable to the District of Columbia.

After a careful review and analysis of the materials on the subject made available to me by the Committee, I would like to make the following observations:

NEED FOR LEGISLATION

First, it appears to me that the spirit and intent of this legislative effort is quite appropriate and certainly responsive to what seems to be a national reaction to runaway campaign financing and serious abuses of equitable and competitive campaign practices.

I would hasten to add, however, that the national preception does not necessarily fit the local scene, primarily due to the fact that there is a newness to the world of politics in the District of Columbia that is not readily quantifiable.

FINANCE LIMITATIONS

Secondly, Title IV-Finance Limitations seems to me to be somewhat premature and arbitrary at this particular point in time.

I feel that the limits set at this time may not be realistic at this point in time because of the fact that the city does not have the benefit of any meaningful experience factors in universal, citywide politics on a large scale. It may be argued that the rationale and thinking that went into the development of such limits is the results of the analysis of campaign spending data from across the country. While it is safe to assume that such data has established a valid basis for identifying discreet monetary sums, I would caution against being lulled into the general applicability of the whole to a unique and extremely different aspect such as the District of Columbia.

In my judgment, while the rest of the country has enjoyed a long established track record in political involvement, the city of Washington, D.C. is just beginning its quest for full enfranchisement.

HATCH ACT

Thirdly, the strong presence of a tremendous Civil Service involvement with its Hatch Act implications seems to me to represent an unknown variable in the equation of politics in Washington, D.C.

This is not to say that more money or less money will be generated as a result of the applicability of the Hatch Act; however, it may be of some value to the Committee to consider this unknown in view of what effect it may have upon limits established or lack of limits.

It seems that the established limits may be unreal in light of the fact that the limitations of the Hatch Act, while not restrictive in terms of contributions, may cause a general apathy toward any participation at all in the political process because of its very nature.

If such were the case then the political process in Washington, D.C. would become a stunted hybrid creature that would not in any way begin to address itself to the needs of the local citizens.

This is further borne out by the fact that there does not exist, at this point in time, a strong corporate or special interest presence as it relates to the political dynamics of the city today.

Thus, it should be argued that a strong amendable vehicle is a must, and that vehicle must speak strongly and eloquently to stringent controls on contributions and spending, and strict financial accountability are the order of business that should be enacted.

I would be hesitant and somewhat reluctant to suggest an arbitrary figure in terms of discreet limits at this point in time without the benefit of at least one or more pilot campaigns that would establish a realistic base or point of departure.

I would, however, strongly urge every candidate to cut campaign spending to an absolute minimum, whether limits are set or whether limits are not set. Such an approach would in fact put greater pressure upon individual candidates, thus causing more personal campaigning, rather than a greater reliance upon high priced media exposure which all candidates may not have access to because of limited

resources.

For a candidate such as myself who has entered the world of politics with no prior exposure or experience, and without any funds and totally independent, I must admit that having had no funds at all, I do not miss any money although I am sure that it would be nice if some funds were available. So in order to reach the voter constituency, I am prepared to wear out several pairs of shoes to compensate and offset what mass media is capable of doing.

BOARD OF ELECTIONS

My final concern is only one small point of what apparently is of trivial significance. This small point is addressed as a layman without the benefit of any legislative training or experience. This concern deals with that aspect of the total bill that establishes the "Division of Campaign Finance," or more appropriately title III.

My concern deals with the fact that my interpretation of this particular title leads me to believe that while such a division is most assuredly needed, it is legal in nature and seems to me to be somewhat distinct and different from the electoral process and mission, thus, I would raise the point of consideration that the duties and responsibilities of title III would appear to have more relevance and functional meaning in the Office of the Corporation Counsel. Hence, without really knowing the real reason, and not being competently versed in the adversary process, to consider such a notion may in face be unreal, unwise and unworkable.

SUMMARY

Finally, in summary and conclusion, it is my considered judgment that the "District of Columbia Campaign Finance Reform Act" is a commendable and worthy legislative effort and its primary thrust and mandate are applaudable. My only real point of difference deals with discreet campaign sums as arbitrary limits without the benefit of a real experience base.

Thus, in this regard, I would suggest that the elements of the bill be strongly encouraged and supported with the total election activity throughout 1974 in the city, be carefully monitored and analyzed to determine a realistic level of campaign contributions and spending for all elected positions in the District of Columbia. Such an approach would allow for a more definitive set of limits to be imposed, especially since a realistic experience base would have been established.

Again Mr. Chairman and distinguished Committee Members, thank you for this opportunity to share with you my views of what is certainly a most noble and worthy effort.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, so very much, Mr. Featherstone for a very comprehensive look at our bill and also for having pointed out some relevant factors that should be considered by us.

Counsel?

Mr. HOGAN. In the interest of permitting other people to testify, Mr. Chairman, I will defer.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you so very much.

Our next witness is Mr. Conrad P. Smith, Candidate for Ward 1 Councilman, who I see is not here, nor is Mr. John Wilson, Candidate for Ward 2 Councilman; their statements when submitted within the next two weeks will be entered in the record. I take this opportunity also to emphasize that the record will remain open for a two-week period for those who may wish to submit supplemental statements or may wish to have others introduce their views who could not get here to these hearings and are apprised of that possibility.

Our next witness is Mary Lela Sherbourne, a candidate for Ward 7 Councilwoman, and we are privileged to have you here.

STATEMENT OF MARY LELA SHERBOURNE, CANDIDATE FOR

COUNCIL

Mrs. SHERBOURNE. I am Mary Lela Sherbourne, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Council seat from Ward 3 in the District of Columbia.