March 27, 1974

A Loser's Suggestions For Campaign Reform

Everybody these days wants campaign reform - at the expense of the opposition.

The professional politicians, who know where the key control points are, won't take the lead because there is vast economic power at stake.

The voters are anxious to clean up the political processes but don't have enough inside knowledge to apply pressure at the sensitive points.

As a result, we are certain to have some hocus-pocus that will give us only an illusion of reform.

The present, much-publicized approaches to the problem - public financing, elaborate reporting, stiff penalties - are more likely to make the situation worse.

The obvious solution to campaign abuses is to remove temptation - enlist human nature instead of defying it.

Simply shorten the campaign.

It takes time to raise money, plan its use, and convert it into publicity.  We now give the professionals six months between primary nominations and general elections - and unlimited opportunity before that - for propagandizing the electorate.

This time scale was necessary two hundred years ago when we did not have instant communication and transportation.  Today, prolonged political campaigns are an anachronism - a custom that time has run away from.

Short campaigns have two self-limiting factors.

First - a campaign of, say, six-weeks puts an automatic ceiling on expenditures.  The mechanics of preparing and distributing advertising material is time consuming.

Second - even fortunes and computers cannot push ideas through the human brain faster than human nature can absorb them - and that is maddeningly slow.  It is useless to pour ten gallons of water into a one gallon bucket.

Thus, many of the abuses of political campaigns would fade away as mountains of cash became unnecessary.

Before we accept either public financing or short campaigns, we should examine the real consequences of each.

With any formula of spending tax money for political purposes we run the risk of a majority party bending the rules to favor its cause.

In addition, there is the constitutional question as to whether it is proper for a tax payer's money to be used for partisan purposes.  Why should his taxes be confiscated for a party he believes will ruin the country?  Or equally for both parties when one has demonstrated a large majority of acceptance?  Or for either party if he is fed up with politics?

Short campaigns would remove the temptations and errors of judgment that go with free and easy dollars.

Yet we also would eliminate the opportunity for relatively unknowns - such as George McGovern or John Glenn - to jump into the arena and challenge the very famous and the very rich.

As a one-time candidate for public office (I lost) I have personal experience with the problems of raising campaign funds and trying to impress the voters.  Both are tough jobs.

In our present dilemma we do not need - in fact, should strenuously resist - any radical change in our political system.  The exaggerated abuses now lumped simplistically under the code word "Watergate" should not stampede us into quicksand.

I suggest some moderate changes in campaign practices that do more to update our system than to out date it.

Prohibit presidential nominating conventions earlier than 10 weeks before the general election, and leave local primary elections as they are.  This cuts the presidential campaign time in half but gives unknown challengers at the grass roots level an opportunity to make a name.

Free use of some public services, but no public money as cash.  Every opposed candidate on the ballot would be allowed one free mailing and computer print-outs of registered voters.

Free prime-time television totaling five 15-minute segments for presidential candidates, five 10-minute segments for congressional candidates, and five 5-minute segments for state-level candidates.  All other, purchased TV time to be not less than two minutes in length in order to downplay "image" slogans.  The TV networks are granted use of the highly limited broadcast spectrum - a national resource of enormous value.  A few hours of time for a few weeks every two years is a small price for a near monopoly, but if the cost can be proven to be a burden, this much might be financed from the public treasury.

Each candidate would be allowed one campaign committee, one treasurer and one bank account.  All contributions would be made by check or money order only - no cash.

Candidates could receive only contributions from individuals, and those donors could give not more than 10 percent of their personal income to political purposes.  Individual contributions would have to be made directly and not collected and forwarded by a third party.

Political parties could receive checks or money orders from any source not exceeding-10 percent of that source's stated annual income.  A party then could spend no more than 10 cents per registered voter on campaign expenses in any one year.

These proposals would not "equalize" the chances of candidates and parties, but they would give everyone a good basic campaign at minimal cost.  Those candidates and parties that try a little harder still could gain an advantage by extra effort and appeal.

The best thing about these six reforms is that they would reduce the one-man personality cults that invite abuse, and they would return the political party to a greater degree of responsibility.

In any event, the present politicians now in office are not likely to make any significant change in what for them is a winning formula.

So, let's consider a loser's suggestions.  He knows first hand the problems and has a greater interest in squaring up the system.

Author: Lindsey Williams