Politics: Who Should Pay?

RUNNING for elective office is a big business these days. Costs are scandalously high even for a congressional campaign. For a presidential race, they reach the astronomical. Richard Nixon spent $29 million in his last election campaign; he is expected to pay out as much as $50 million to win a second term. Yet politicians have remained remarkably complacent about it all. They refuse to amend the Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, though not a single person has been convicted under its provisions. Big contributors are scarcely deterred by a prohibition against giving more than $5,000 to a single candidate; they simply spread their largesse among several committees bearing such deceptively nonpartisan titles as Americans for Greater Public Awareness or Committee for Political Integrity.

Little effort has been made to tighten up the law; last year President Nixon vetoed a bill that would have limited campaign spending on broadcasting. But growing public pressure, abetted by such groups as Common Cause and the National Committee for an Effective Congress, has forced a new look at the whole murky apparatus of campaign funding.

Congress is now considering four separate proposals. Last week the House debated three measures that impose some kind of limit on campaign spending, especially for television. The Senate was busy with an amendment to the tax bill that would finance presidential campaigns out of the federal treasury. PUBLIC FINANCING. Reaction to the public-financing proposal split straight down party lines. The Democrats, who sorely need the money, spoke in favor of it; the Republicans, who are well-heeled going into 1972, denounced it. The plan would allow a taxpayer to check off $1 as a contribution to the presidential campaign. Under the formula, each of the major parties would be permitted to spend up to $20.4 million in 1972, provided enough taxpayers cooperate. Lesser amounts would be given to minor party candidates; George Wallace, for example, would receive an estimated $6,000,000. A candidate would not be obligated to accept public financing, but if he did, he could not take money from private sources. To keep the measure from coming to a vote, Republicans offered one amendment after another; finally, they agreed to vote this week. In the meantime, the White House cranked up a campaign to defeat the proposal. Nixon returned from a Florida trip to supervise the operation; he threatened to veto the entire tax bill if the amendment were attached to it. Clark MacGregor, the chief White House liaison man with Congress, argued that the plan would rob the Treasury of money that would have to be replaced from another source. He also contended that the check-off system would "freeze out minor parties" and "render immune from change the central structure of each major party."

TV LIMITATION. Last August a bill was passed by the Senate, 88-2, putting a lid on campaign spending of 100 for every eligible voter in the area where the candidate is running. Of this, no more than 60 per voter could be spent on TV and radio advertising. In the presidential election, such a limitation would mean that a candidate could not spend more than $8.4 million for broadcasting; Richard Nixon paid $12.6 million in 1968. Since that Senate bill came under the jurisdiction of two House committees, Administration and Commerce, each reported out its own version. They weakened some features of the Senate bill, strengthened others. Debate focused on whether a spending limitation would help an incumbent, since a challenger might be prevented from buying enough advertising to make himself known. A congressional incumbent can take credit for roads and dams in his district and inundate his constituents with campaign mail sent free of charge from his office. Only by spending considerable money can a challenger usually catch up (TIME Essay, May 17).

Informal Filibuster, Republicans were unhappy because none of the measures clamped down on labor contributions to Democratic candidates. As in the Senate, the Republicans staged an informal filibuster in the House. They kept demanding quorum calls, so the House leadership agreed to put off the vote until after the Thanksgiving recess.

One reason that Congress is likely to act is that campaign costs have soared out of control. In 1968, some $300 million was spent on campaigning for all offices--federal, state and local. The cost is bound to be even greater in 1972. The major outlay is for television: a 60-second spot, a favorite of candidates in 1968, costs almost $50,000 in prime time. But there are other expensive items that have been added to the well-stocked campaign: computer data banks with voter profiles, professional pollsters, $500-a-day political consultants.

It takes a rich man--or a man with rich friends (see opposite page)--to run a serious campaign for high office. To be sure, money is not everything. Though Richard Ottinger won the 1970 senatorial primary in New York by swamping television with skillfully produced spot ads, he could not spend enough to win the election against James Buckley. Rich backers usually demand a quid pro quo --or try to. In 1968, Stewart Mott, son of the largest stockholder of General Motors' directors, offered to provide Hubert Humphrey with badly needed cash if the candidate would change his policies on Viet Nam; Humphrey refused. Last August, dairy farmers contributed some $250,000 to the Republican Party--after the Agriculture Department reversed its policy and raised the support price for milk.

Last week Deputy Attorney General Richard Kleindienst testified at a bribery trial that the defendant had offered to contribute $100,000 to the Republican Party if certain stock fraud indictments were quashed.

"Voluntary" Deductions. Though forbidden to contribute to political campaigns, corporations give bonuses to officers who thereupon hand them over to a favored candidate. Or a corporation may donate supplies or the use of an airplane to a candidate. Labor unions are not allowed to contribute members' dues to campaigns, so they set up separate funds to finance candidates. The National Marine Engineers Beneficial Association hit on making its pensioners pay for political campaigns. Each month, $10 is "voluntarily" deducted from every pension check and put into a fund that has become the largest single contribution to the AFL-CIO's Committee on Political Education.

No one can be sure what shape reform should take, or how changes can be made foolproof or consistently beneficial. Some feel that a man should be free to give as much as he wants to any party or candidate. The fact remains, however, that big money distorts the political scene. The only alternative to reform is still greater dominance of American public life by the fat cats who know, as California Political Veteran Jess Unruh regretfully observes, that "money is the mother's milk of politics." At this point, almost any congressional action would be better than nothing.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.