Candidate 2 South Dakota: 1970 GOVERNORS' RACES: TELEVISION AND RADIO SPENDING-Continued Kneip (Democrat) 3. Tennessee: Hooker (Democrat). Lucey (Democrat) 3 Olson (Republican).. 189 161, 236 161,425 Wyoming: Rooney (Democrat).. Hathaway (Republican) . 1 Candidates who spent less than $10,000 are not included unless they were major party nominees. 2 The FCC reduced all figures in these columns by 15 percent in order to subtract agency commissions. To obtain actual spending, divide the net figures by 85 percent. Ohio's 19th District Democratic primary election, which had 15 candidates, was won by Charles J. Carney, who spent $4,992 on broadcast advertising. Other high spenders were Richard P. McLaughlin, $11,051; Gary J. Thompson, $6,671; and John M. Hudzik, $3,744. In Pennsylvania's 17th District, Republican incumbent Herman T. Schneebeli spent $16,938 in overcoming a determined challenge by Robert F. Smith, who spent $23,085. South Dakota's two Republican primaries both had high expenditures. The 1st District had five candidates, and was won by Dexter H. Gunderson, who spent $13,356. Jerry Simmons spent $8,809 and Frank Gibbs $4,361 in losing efforts. In the 2nd District, Fred D. Brady spent $11,837 in a successful campaign over James Abdnor, who spent $7,166. Neither Republican candidate won his general election contest. Finally, two primary races in Texas had spending of more than $10,000 by candidates. In the 5th District, Rep. Earle Cabell (D) spent $10,078 in defeating challenger Mike McCool, who spent $5,253. And in the 7th District Republican primary, Bill Archer spent $29,955 in winning the nomination over Ross Baker, who spent $17,831, and Dudley Sharp Jr., who spent $21,055. Broadcast Costs Per Vote. When measured on a cost-per-vote basis, the most expensive general election campaign for statewide office was conducted by Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller (R Ark.). His losing campaign for re-election cost $1.56 for each vote he received. The winner, Dale Bumpers (D), spent 31 cents per vote. The smallest expenditure by a winning gubernatorial candidate was the 5 cents per vote of J.J. Exon (D Neb.) who defeated incumbent Norbert T. Tiemann (R). Tiemann spent 9 cents per vote. Sen. Howard W. Cannon (D Nev.) spent 80 cents per vote in his successful re-election bid-the highest amount expended by a winner in a statewide race. His opponent, William Raggio (R), spent $1.36 per vote. The smallest amount spent by a winner in a statewide campaign was the .56 cents per vote outlay of Sen. John C. Stennis (D Miss.) who had no Republican opponent. Among winning statewide candidates who were opposed, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D W. Va.) spent the least, 2 cents per vote. His opponent also spent 2 cents per vote. The lowest cost per vote for a losing candidate was the 12-cents expenditure of William Sesler (D Pa.) who opposed Sen. Hugh Scott (R). Wyoming had the least expensive campaign by a losing gubernatorial candidate. John J. Rooney (D) spent 4 cents per vote, compared to 15 cents for his opponent, Gov. Stanley K. Hathaway (R). HISTORY'S COSTLIEST CAMPAIGN Spending in the battle for the White House was only a fraction of the record total of 400 millions poured out for the nationwide 1972 elections. The political campaign of 1972 may not have been the most exciting, but it turned out to be by far the costliest in history. Total spending on presidential, congressional, State and local contests topped 400 million dollars, by authoritative count. This compares with total outlays of about 300 million dollars in the previous record year, 1968. The new mark reflects the steadily rising cost of campaigning. This year's estimated total is nearly triple the 140 million dollars laid out by candidates in the elections 20 years ago, and double the figure for 1964. One authority whose data indicate that a 400-million-dollar estimate of the cost of American politics in 1972 is accurate is Herbert E. Alexander, director of the Citizen's Research Foundation in Princeton, N.J. Dr. Alexander is a politieal scientist who specializes in studies of campaign financing. Soaring costs of campaigning, this expert notes, are propelled by such factors as inflation, greater and more-expensive use of television, the application of highpriced computer techniques, and more-widespread polling. $5 per voter.-Dr. Alexander does not consider the spending total excessive for an affluent nation. He observes: "It's not much in terms of what is spent on chewing gum and cosmetics." Political scientists point out that what was spent amounts to less than $3 a head on the basis of nearly 140 million Americans of voting age, or about $5 per actual voter. The 1972 presidential race alone is estimated by Dr. Alexander to have cost, in round figures, 100 million dollars. He gives this breakdown: Nixon campaign-45 million dollars. McGovern campaign-22 million. Prenomination spending, plus outlays by minor-party candidates-33 millions. With financial records far from complete at this point, Dr. Alexander estimates that contests for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, Statewide races for Governor, Lieutenant Governor and other offices, and campaigns for county or local offices cost roughly 100 million dollars in each of the three categories. The political-financing analyst cited the fact that there are more than 500,000 elective offices in the U.S. Presidential campaign costs for this year's general election-about 67 million dollars by the major parties-show a rise from a total of 59.4 million in 1968 and 34.8 million in 1964. The 1968 figures include 7.2 million dollars spent on behalf of the third-party candidacy of Governor George Wallace of Alabama. This year, Mr. Wallace campaigned for the Democratic nomination until an assassination attempt in which he was severely wounded forced him to halt his efforts. Million-dollar donors.-Public attention has been sharply focused on the spending issue this year. One reason is the new Federal Election Campaign Act, which became effective on April 7. Under that law, political committees are required to register with the U.S. Comptroller General and report all contributions in excess of $10. A spotlight has thus been beamed on big donations-and controversy has arisen about money that was collected before April 7, when disclosure became mandatory. The Committee for the Re-election of the President said it had 10.2 million dollars in cash on hand before the April 7 deadline. On November 2, Republicans disclosed under a court order a list of 283 persons who contributed more than 5 million dollars of that total. Biggest gift listed was 1 million dollars from W. Clement Stone, Chicago insurance magnate. Another big donation shown was $800,000 from Richard Mellon Scaife, of Pittsburgh, one of the heirs to the Mellon banking fortune. Mr. Scaife has said publicly that, over all, he gave $990,000 to the Nixon campaign, in checks for $3,000 each to 330 separate political committees. On the McGovern side, a late-October example of substantial financial help was the filing of a report showing loans totaling $500,000 from Daniel and Nicholas Noyes, of Indiana, heirs to the Eli Lilly drug fortune. More contributors.-Campaign committees in both major parties agree that more "little people" contributed more money than ever before to political war chests this year. Charles R. Barr, a partner in a Washington-based firm, Public Affairs Analysts, suggests these reasons: "For one thing, Americans are becoming increasingly aware that contributing is an active way of supporting the . . . party or candidates of their choice. "In addition, political parties are doing a more-effective selling job in attracting contributions. Finally, corporations are doing more to encourage employes to make political contributions, so the average contribution is going up." Other experts point to the growing financial role of labor unions in politics. Spending by unions on national-level candidates rose from 1.8 million dollars in 1956 to 6.6 million in 1968, and some officials report that this year's outlays were about 10 million. In the view of some analysts. Dr. Alexander among them, it is up to Congress to find a way to improve on the present system of raising political moneyand to enact legislation assuring that "the mother's milk of politics" is distributed more equitably. [From the New York Times, Nov. 19, 1972] CAMPAIGN SPENDING IN '72 HIT RECORD $400-MILLION (By Ben A. Franklin) WASHINGTON. Nov. 18.-Senator John G. Tower, Republican of Texas, reported campaign spending of more than $2.5-million today in his successful bid for re-election, making his Senate seat apparently the most expensive nonPresidential office of the 1972 election year. By all estimates, when the final official campaign contribution and expenditure figures are computed and published on Jan. 31, the 1972 elections at all levels will prove to have been roughly a $400-million enterprise, up $100-million from the record $300-million estimated to have been spent in 1968. 500,000 ELECTIVE OFFICES Moreover, there are more than 500,000 elected officials in the United States at all levels of government. While the Presidential campaign ($100-million this year, by over-all estimates), the Senate and House races ($100-million for both) and the gubernatorial and state legislature contests (another $100-million nationwide) consume the bulk of campaign funds, each election, even for dog catcher, requires some financing locally (about $100-million more). From the perspective of per voter expenditures, the totals are less awesome. Senator Tower's reported spending of $2,579,952, for example, helped bring him 1,850.983 votes in Texas-a per voter cost of about $1.39. Senator Tower's $2.5-million share of this year's campaign spending total by itself does not appear to have set an all-time non-Presidential mark. Other senatorial and gubernatorial campaigns in recent years, even when requirements for financial reporting by the candidates were generally less stringent than now, have far exceeded it. For example, the $7.1-million estimated by the nonpartisan Citizens Research Foundation to have been spent by Nelson A. Rockefeller in winning reelection as Governor of New York in 1970 was roughly three times the Tower total. The Rockefeller expenditure remains the all-time non-Presidential high. Former Representative Richard L. Ottinger reportedly spent about $4-million in both the primary and general election in 1970, in which the Westchester County Democrat lost a bid for the Senate to James L. Buckley, Conservative-Republican. In the Texas race this year, Senator Tower had no primary opposition, but he campaigned as though he did. Gov. Ronald Reegan of California reported spending $3.5-million in his 1970 campaign, and in the same year Senator George Murphy of California spent about $2.5-million. He lost to John V. Tunney, a Democrat. Complete disclosures of expenditures, up to Election Day, are not available in most other Congressional races this year because the new Federal Election Campaign Act does not require final reports until the end of January. The Federal reports available now cover spending only through Oct. 26. The Texas filings today were under a state disclosure law. PERCY, THEN BROOKE But when the Federal data is published, spending records already available indicate that Senator Tower's 1972 outlay will be closely followed by that of Senator Charles H. Percy, Republican of Illinois, and then by Senator Edward W. Brooke, Republican of Massachusetts. A Massachusetts race for the House also is believed to have been among the most expensive for that office this year-that of Gerry E. Studds, a Democrat elected to the seat of Hastings Keith, a Republican. Senator Tower's financial filing was made today in Austin, the state capital. A statement by his Democratic opponent. Barefoot Sanders, reported spending $579.530. This was about one-quarter of Mr. Tower's total, which was heavily underwritten by the National Republican organization and by officials of the savings and loan industry. Mr. Tower is a member of the Senate Banking Committee. More than 10 per cent of Mr. Sander's contributions-a total of $40,000 to $50,000 less than he reported spending-came from the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee ($52,655) and the National Committee for an Effective Congress ($20,000), a Washington based supporter of liberal candidates of both parties. |