ever by or on behalf of a candidate for Federal elective office; and in the process increase the amount a candidate would be entitled to spend from 10 cents to 25 cents times the voting age population of the geographic area in which the election is being held.

And I want to say here, again, there is no pride of authorship, and the amount that has been suggested is flexible. It could either go up or down in order to reach a reasonable amount. I do want to tell how I reached the figure of 25 cents, I took my own State as an example. The 25 cents in my State would mean that each of the candidates could spend about $168,000 to run for the office of Senator. And in my opinion, from my own experience, that is more than enough.

The equal time requirement of section 315 was, of course, suspended for the 1960 Presidential campaign, and the major networks were able to give substantial amounts of free time to the significant candidates as a consequence. They have informed the committee that they will do so again if relieved of the strictures of section 15. The networks have also assured the committee that such free time would be available to each candidate to use as he saw fit. In other words, these offers would not be conditioned upon a predetermined format.

From experience we know the 1960 suspension resulted in a wider and more informed electorate. We also know that the cost of television time is the most expensive item in a Presidential campaign.

Repeal of the equal time requirement should therefore have the twofold effect of reducing the cost of these campaigns, and helping the voter make an enlightened choice.

The year 1976 will offer a unique opportunity. There will be no incumbent candidate for the Presidency. In the past, each of the major parties has had an incumbent candidate, and in each instance the incumbent candidate did not favor repeal of section 315.

Extending the spending limitation to cover all campaign expenditures speaks for itself. From what we already know of the recent elections a selective limitation simply does not achieve the objective everyone is seeking.

An overall limitation should stop escalating costs. Moreover, each candidate will be in a position to decide how best he may apportion his campaign expenditures. We know, for example, in some of the smaller States, and in certain congressional districts, the electronic media is not the major item of expense. Direct mailings, hand bills, and so forth-none of which are covered by the present limitationsfigure more prominently. Each candidate should be free to decide these matters and yet still be subject to an overall limitation.

As we begin these hearings, I would hope everyone is aware that the committee does not purport to have any pat answers. S. 372 is one approach to a solution; undoubtedly there are others. That is why we are here today-to give the subject a thorough airing. There is no partisan concern, only a common concern to solve the problem which is affecting our democratic system of government.

In order to expedite the hearing, unless my colleagues have some introductory remarks they would like to make, I would like to call on the first witness, Mr. John Gardner, who is the head of Common Cause, a citizen's group. He is a man who is dedicated to seeing to it that our democratic process is preserved and be an object of admiration for all of our citizens.

Senator Baker, do you have anything you would like to say at this time?

Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to say except to join you in welcoming Secretary Gardner to this hearing. We look forward to his testimony and the resultant product of his extensive inquiry over a long period of time into a very crucial subject.

Having just navigated the rocks and shoals of an election campaign myself and conceding freely that the wounds are not fully healed and in some cases the stitches not yet removed, I feel that I come to this hearing fresh and in a position to lend personal insight.

I just say that I have on previous occasions uttered certain reservations and cautions about the extent and nature of limitations that are placed by statute on the elective process for fear that in general they may limit the freedom of expression and the flexibility of that process. I would hope that it would be the function of this committee in further examination of campaign financing legislation to try to find and to further elaborate the judicious balance between sanity in campaign financing and full freedom and flexibility of the elective process.

That will not be an easy job, but I expect that in the course of things, we will hear extensive testimony containing recommendations from distinguished witnesses such as this one. I look forward to the further proceedings of the subcommittee.

Senator PASTORE. Senator Pearson.

Senator PEARSON. I have no comment. Thank you.
Senator PASTORE. Senator Magnuson.

The CHAIRMAN. No.

Senator PASTORE. Senator Stevens.

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, I, too, just crossed that bridge of an election. And I am most interested as we try to review this matterI agree with you that we should keep in mind the effect on some of the media as we attempt to limit the expense for candidates. I think we have placed greater burden on some of the smaller media in States such as mine that eventually will become so burdensome they will not be able to survive.

So I am most anxious to hear Mr. Gardner's presentation and the others. And I hope that we can keep in mind that these small newspapers, small television, small radio stations, have to secure enough income to keep going. And during an election year, it is a very difficult thing to do if we are going to put additional burdens on the media in terms of meeting their obligation to inform the public as to the issues and give all candidates an equal opportunity to appear before the public.

Senator PASTORE. There is nothing in this bill that does that. No one wants to do that. We are not adding any burdens upon anyone. What we are trying to do is relieve a burden.

I have been in public life now continuously for 38 years. The first time I ran for Governor in my State, I spent less than $50,000. Today, you have to spend half $1 million, and maybe more. When I was elected the office of Governor only paid $8,000 a year; and it has gone up now to the astronomical figure of $25,000 a year.

Now, any time anyone begins to spend almost $1 million to secure a job that pays $25,000 a year, you can imagine the cynicism on the part of the people. They say, "What gives?" The point here is not to

encroach in any way upon the freedom of expression. Naturally, you have to be liberal enough-but it then becomes a competitive contest. And it is a question of who can spend the most money.

I do not think that the people ought to be inundated with a lot of propaganda. I think the issues ought to be explained, but I do not think that the election ought to be up for sale. That is what we are trying to prevent.

Now, the Congress of the United States in 1971, realizing the major part of the cost went toward the electronic media, newspaper advertising, other periodicals, billboards, and certain telephone uses, limited spending in those areas. Now it develops that even with that limitation, candidates use other forms of bringing the information to the public. And in many, many instances, the public is really annoyed with the number of letters that go to the "occupant of such and such a place." It does not help anybody. But just because your opponent does it, you do it, too. And a lot of money is wasted, really wasted. Sometimes I think they would be better off if they gave it to the poor.

But the fact still remains that we want to be reasonable. We want to be generous enough. But on the other hand, we ought to eliminate the scandals that I think are beginning to grow up. When you realize a candidate has to spend $2.5 million to be elected, that is in my judgment too much. And when a man who runs for the Presidency has to spend more than $50 million to be elected, even though he is an incumbent and can be on the front page every day, that to me is questionable.

And this is no reflection on anyone because we all do it. We all do it. I repeat again, if your opponent spends the money, you have got to match it. And it becomes a seesaw. By the time you get through after election day, you say, "What a fool I was." Next time around, you do it all over again.

Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, let me make one additional statement in that context. I have heard the allegation from time to time which you repeated in your opening statement that there is something inherently suspicious in the expenditure of $500,000 or $1 million in a senatorial race for an elective job that pays $42,500. I would make a distinction here, if I may, that I believe is important to this inquiry. If we were talking about a very rich man who spent $1 million to be elected to the U.S. Senate, I would be very suspicious, indeed. But if you are talking, as we are usually talking, about two campaigns— one, the campaign for votes in the traditional and classical manner, and the other for financial support and a broad base of contributors then it seems to me this analogy of spending a very large sum of money to be elected to a job that pays a relatively modest salary is not in the same category.

The last statute we passed, as you know, provides not only for extensive limitations on expenditures in certain categories, but it also provides for a full disclosure of the amount of personal resources and funds of the candidates and candidate's immediate family, the so-called rich man's amendment.

It seems to me that during this hearing, we need to keep clearly in mind the fact that in the American elective process, the campaign, the effort to have a broad base of voter support is only narrowly more intensive than the campaign to have a broad base of financial support

which I think subsequently negates the idea that the public should be or is cynical about the large sums of money that are spent. I cannot place a dollar value on the power of a U.S. Senator. It is certainly greater than $42,500.

I would be greatly concerned if a large number of people spent huge sums of money for their own purposes, but I am not so concerned when there is in fact a broad base of national support.

Senator PASTORE. That is true. But when an Ambassador gives $250,000 to a campaign, you question whether he is the best man for the job, or the best contributor for the job. That is what we are talking about.

Senator BAKER. That, of course, does not affect the State
Senator PASTORE. It is going to be.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman, when we talk about someone spending $500,000 for a campaign in a State, we say a half a million dollars is a big figure. But I think sometimes, we ought to take a look, too, at what that means in terms of cost per voter.

Let us take my State as an example. We have got 1,700,000 voters. If the campaign costs $500,000 for the Senate, we would be spending about 29 cents per voter. I think you ought to look at it that way sometimes.

Senator PASTORE. We are making it 25 cents.

The CHAIRMAN. You find it difficult to mail a few letters for 29 cents to a voter; that is, to all the voters in the State. So you do not contact them. Now, you translate that into television and things like that. You hope you pick up the voters.

But say a person wanted to run for Governor in the State or Senator and said, "I do not want to go on television, I do not want any newspaper, I want to have a direct mail to every voter and tell them about me." He would have to spend more than 25 cents a voter. And I do not think there is anything wrong with that.

Senator PASTORE. Well, but when you begin to spend $1 for a voter, and $2 for a voter, and $3 for a voter, there is something wrong. That is what we are trying to do here.

The CHAIRMAN. That is why you put a limitation on it here, so much per voter. What I am trying to say is we should shift from just quoting figures that people spend. We should be concerned with the amount spent in relation to the number of voters that you have.

Senator PASTORE. That is right. And I repeat again, I have no personal pride in the 25 cents. If you have got to make it bigger, let us make it bigger. We have an escalation clause here predicated on the Cost of Living Index so that we take that into account as the prices go up. The law is drafted sensibly enough in that regard.

The only thing that I am saying is that if the sky is going to be the limit, then let us repeal the Campaign Act of 1971, and let us have it over with. But I think it is ridiculous for us to limit spending in certain categories, while the gates are wide open in other categories, and you end up spending even more money under a partial limitation than you did previously, when there was no limitation.

I am not trying to force my will upon anyone. This bill has been introduced because I feel there is some public support. And naturally, of course, if Congress does not want to vote for it, that is their responsibility. But I think in the long run, we are not doing something that has not existed in the law. There has always been a limitation in the law.

The only trouble is that the limitation was such there were many subterfuges. The limitation was a ridiculous one. We did put in the 1971 law a limitation on what a family can contribute to the candidacy of one of its members; but the fact still remains that when a man contributes $2.5 million to a Presidential campaign, he is not doing it because he loves his mother.

And when a man makes a contribution of $15,000, or $20,000 or $30,000, and he knocks at your door, you cannot say, "I am out.” The least you have got to do is see him.

And when you talk about the cynicism of the public, that is what the public is seeing. Why do these people make such big contributions? Why do they have to? What are they looking for? That is your question. And that is the reason why there is strong sentiment in this country to have all elective offices at the Federal level financed with public money.

Well, now, maybe the public is not ready for that drastic change. But eventually, if you want to preserve this democracy, you have got to give that serious thought.

Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman?

Senator PASTORE. Yes.

Senator BAKER. Two things, and then I promise Mr. Gardner I will not impose on his time.

The Congressional Record and these hearing records and the hearing records of the Rules Committee are already extensively burdened with remarks I have made about my conception of the perils and pitfalls of public financing of campaigns. I do not want the Federal Government running political campaigns because it finances them. I shudder to think of the rules and regulations that would issue in that respect. And I do not believe that the viability of the free democratic system is served by having bureaucratic intrusion into the election process.

The second point, however, is one that I would offer as an observation at the outset so that we might give it some thought during these hearings. I believe there was probably in the 1972 election, which was the first election in which the new campaign laws were effective, an unintended effect. Call it the effect of centralization.

My disclosure of my campaign expenditures in 1972 shows something in the range of $1 million spent. The published reports of the campaign for Governor in 1970 and the U.S. Senator in 1970 show something in the same range or a little higher. But I am convinced on the basis of this phenomenon of centralization that I spent about half of what was spent in the previous races, notwithstanding that the published figures are about the same. And this is the reason why:

Before the new campaign act, many, many campaign functions were handled at the local level. County headquarters were locally funded and maintained. Local telephone bills were locally paid and maintained. Advertisements in small daily newspapers and county newspapers were locally obtained and paid for.

But to comply with the letter and spirit of the law, it was necessary for me in my campaign to centralize at one point all of the money that was contributed, every cent, in one account and to have one authority for paying all bills. So as a result of that, bills that had never been paid by a candidate were picked up and paid by this candidate