Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525532
label
Ford Press Releases - Election Reform, 1966-1969
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525532
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases - Election Reform, 1966-1969
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Subject Files
subjects
Campaign funds
Electoral college
Legislation
Political reform
Presidential campaigns
Suffrage
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525532
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1969-12-31
month
12
year
1969
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1966-05-01
month
5
year
1966
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
1c008e404694b868
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D7, folder "Ford Press Releases - Election
Reform, 1966-1969" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at
the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D7 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
House Republican Policy Committee
John J. Phodes, Chairean
May 26, 1966
140 Cannon House Office Bldg.
INMEDIATE RELEASE
Phone: 225-6160
Republican Policy Committee Statement on Election Reform and Deductions
for Political Contributions
The House Republican Policy Committee urges the immediate review and refers
of the federal laws that pertain to compaign contribution supenditures.
Political campaigus are becoming so expensive that soon this country will be
faced with a situation wherein only the rich, or a person with substantial
financial backing, will 30 able to run for public office. There is # growing
danger that, in sany instances, a person with unlimited financial means, but
fower qualifications, any be able to overwhele 8 better qualified, but less
affluent, opponent through the naximum use of radio, TV, and other methods of
communication and advertising. The federal election laws should be chenged 90
that absolute but reasonable limits are placed on general election and primary
campaign expenditures for the various federal officen.
Strict and accurate accounting should be required so that expenditures
remain within established limits, and the was of spurinus campaign counittees
to avoid the reporting of total expenditures should be prohibited. Also, a
central repository under the direction of the General Accounting Office should
be established 00 that all reports would be received. examined. tobulated,
summarized and publicized in a uniform menner.
By its terms, the existing lav prohibits contributions by both corporations
and unions to campaigns for federal office. Unfortunately, through court inter-
pretation and lack of enforcement, this provision has become almost meaningless.
Today, thousands and thousands of dollars of union and corporation funds are
changeled, either directly or indirectly, into various political activities.
Raform in this area ie long overdue. legislation chae will correct the defects
in the law and permit vigorous enforcement must be macted.
In order that there may be maximum participation in the election process by
the American public, & $100 tax deduction should be provided for campaign con-
tributions to an appropriate committee of 4 qualified political party. This
deduction should be available whether or not the texpayer elects to take the
standard deduction. A tax deduction of this type would encourage individuals
in all walks of life to contribute. Moreover, it would prevent candidates from
becoming too dependent upon a few large contributors.
(over)
DERALD FORD VISAARY
2-
The 1962 Report of the President's Commission on Campaign Costs recomended
certain reforms, including tax allowances. These suggestions, which were
livited to Presidential and Vice Presidential campaigns, were favorably received
and Implementing legislation was recommended by the President, Unfortunately,
this legislation did not receive serious consideration by either the 87th or the
88th Congresses. In order that a first step toward the solution of this
serious problem may be taken during the 89th Congress, ve urge that the appro-
priate Congressional committee give prompt and careful consideration to legis-
lation that will provide 8 $100 tex deduction for campaien contributions.
That there is a growing interest in elections, and a willinguess to parti-
cipate through campuign contributions. is illustrate* by the fact that in the
1964 campaign, & large percent of the total funds collected by the Republican
Party was in contributions of $100 or less. Significantly, for 300,000
Republican contributors, the average contribution vas $11.1. On the other hand,
a recent report by the Citizen's Research Foundation of Princeton, N.J., reflects
that in 1964, of the total Democratic contributions from individuals, 70 percent
vere received in suna of $5.00 or more.
Certainly, small contributions must be encouraged. Providing a $100 tax
deduction 1a, we believe, a logical and fair way to schieve this result.
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY P.M., MAY 27, 1966
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.
It is interesting that President Johnson's election reform bill should be
sent to Congress immediately after news stories appeared concerning Republican
proposals in this field. I find the President's recommendations a good starting
point. I am sure they can be improved upon, and House Republicans aim to do just
that. We will be putting in € bill of our own, with next Wednesday as the target
date for introducing it. I cannot discuss the content at this time, except to say
it will be more comprehensive than the Administration measure.
In the light of Mr. Johnson's interest in disclosure of gifts and income by
members of Congress, it appears to me the President might well see to it that the
President's Club reports filed with the Clerk of the House for the years 1964,
1965 and the first quarter of 1966 are revised. These reports indicate the Club
spent $459,228.75 more than it took in during the period covered. There is
obviously a discrepancy here, and it should be straightened out.
It is also interesting to note that the Democratic National Committee,
reporting on its activities for the first quarter of this year, stated that it
spent $155,005 more than it received. The committee placed its total spending
for the period at $401,122. At the same time, Democratic officials told newsmen
they paid off $800,000 of 1964 campaign debts. How do they explain that?
These reports of income and outgo oppear irreconcilable. I can only conclude
that they are completely phoney.
Maybe the President, with his grest interest in election reform, can set
these matters right.
GERALD
# #
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE FRIDAY P.M., MAY 27, 1966
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.
It is interesting that President Johnson's election reform bill should be
sent to Congress immediately after news stories appeared concerning Republican
proposals in this field. I find the President's recommendations a good starting
point. I am sure they can be improved upon, and House Republicans aim to do just
that. We will be putting in w bill of our own, with next Wednesday as the target
date for introducing it. I cannot discuss the content at this time, except to say
it will be more comprehensive than the Administration measure.
In the light of Mr. Johnson's interest in disclosure of gifts and income by
members of Congress, it appears to me the President might well see to it that the
President's Club reports filed with the Clerk of the House for the years 1964,
1965 and the first quarter of 1966 are revised. These reports indicate the Club
spent $459,228.75 more than it took in during the period covered. There is
obviously a discrepancy here, and it should be straightened out.
It is also interesting to note that the Democratic National Committee,
reporting on its activities for the first quarter of this year, stated that it
spent $155,005 more than it received. The committee placed its total spending
for the period at $401,122. At the same time, Democratic officials told newsmen
they paid off $800,000 of 1964 campaign debts. How do they explain that?
These reports of income and outgo oppear irreconcilable. I can only conclude
that they are completely phoney.
Maybe the President, with his great interest in election reform, can set
these matters right.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT
WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 1966
STATEMENT BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.
Last January 17, in our Republican Appraisal of the State of the Union, I
said we of the minority were "surprised and pleased that the President touched on
the subject of political campaigns and elections" in his message to the Congress.
I also said, "His recommendations do not go far enough."
This turned out to be equally true of the legislative proposals which
President Johnson sent up to us at the end of May. Republicans promised then to
give the Administration's suggestions serious study, and we have, as my colleagues
will explain in greater detail.
It would seem that when the Democrat in the White House and the Republican
leaders in the Senate and House agree in January on the need for an election
reform bill, the public might be entitled to expect one before the elections in
November. This may still be possible if the Administration and the Democratic
Majority in Congress really mean business.
Here I might read you the opinion of The Detroit News in my home State of
Michigan. In a May 31, 1966, editorial headed: LBJ's Reform Campaign Financing--
Too Little and Too Late, The News said:
"Let us remember first that Lyndon B. Johnson had it within his
power for many years to do something meaningful about reforming
congressional campaign spending. But when he was majority leader of
the Senate (and his 'good right arm,' Robert G. 'Bobby' Baker, staffed
the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee), exactly nothing was
done.
"And let us remember further there is virtually no chance
Congress will take the time to work on the complex and touchy problem
of campaign spending reform in the few months remaining in this
session. Had not Capitol Hill Republicans made their own proposals
earlier last week and goaded the President to send up his bill, there's
no telling when he would have gotten around to, as he said, 'urge its
prompt enactment. "
(MORE)
GERALD
-2-
ELECTION REFORM STATEMENT
"Finally, the President cannot avoid the responsibility for
leading a national political party which, by its dedicated exploitation
of loopholes in existing law, has seriously undermined public confidence
in the integrity of government."
That was The Detroit News speaking. Personally, I prefer to think the
President is sincere about campaign and election reforms and full disclosure of
contributions. Here is a story in the Washington Post about Mr. Johnson's
appearance at one of his President's Club $1,000-a-plate dinners in New York last
month "The President Shakes the Hands That Write Big Checks for the Party."
I'm sure he feels the public has a right to know who wrote those checks. Although
the affair was closed to reporters, the Associated Press reported that portions
of his Waldorf-Astoria remarks were overheard, and quoted them as follows:
"The Democratic Party was $4 million in debt when I took office,"
the President said. "Since I took office the debt has been reduced to
about $1.5 million so far, and a few more dinners like this should put
the Democratic Party in the black."
When President Johnson sent his election reform proposals to the Congress
last May, I commented that he could demonstrate his interest in full disclosure
by having his President's Club explain how, according to the reports then on file
with the Clerk of the House, it had apparently managed to spend nearly half a
million dollars more than it took in since 1963.
I am happy to report that this has been done, and that the President's Club
listed contributions of $917,253.57 during the second reporting period of this
calendar year, bringing the President's Club's total receipts for 1966 to
$1,042,853.57 thus far reported. So at least one Democratic deficit appears to
have been eliminated.
We Republicans are serious about campaign reforms. In this Congress we're
only Number Two, but we try harder. Some observers (like The Detroit News) don't
think Number One is really trying at all, but if the majority wants reforms before
November, we're ready to cooperate. This bill, which we are introducing today, is
proof of our serious purpose.
# # #
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1966
In view of the urgent need for reform in the field of political finance, I
am deeply disappointed at the sudden and unexplained cancellation of hearings
on this subject which were scheduled to begin before the Elections Subcommittee
of the House Administration Committee. Less than an hour and a half before the
time set for the opening of hearings today, Committee members and witnesses were
notified of the cancellation.
It is hard to understand this show of reluctance to come to grips with
issues so important to the institutions of popular government. Several bills
have been introduced looking toward reforms which leaders of both parties have
stated are long overdue. The problems to which these bills address themselves
require early attention by the Congress. Recent revelations of the activities
of the President's Club give added reason for speedy action.
All who are interested in the integrity of the election process will be
grieved that Congress is dragging its feet on the matter of election reform.
I trust that the cancelled hearings will be rescheduled as soon as possible
and that a serious and penetrating study of the subject will be undertaken
without further delay.
# # #
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THURSDAY, AUGUST 11, 1966
STATEMENT BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.
It is most reassuring to have the White House announce that President
Johnson "is disappointed that the election reform proposal he sent to Congress
has not, at this date, received thorough consideration and adequate hearings."
When Mr. Johnson wants the two-to-one majority he commands in this Congress
to take action, it usually does so, following either his renowned "reasoning
together" or his Texas-style arm twisting.
I am gratified the House Administration elections subcommittee will continue
the one day of hearings previously given the President's proposal and the various
Republican bills, including my own, which substantially improve upon it. These
hearings are scheduled to reopen August 17.
The public wants action on campaign reforms by this Congress. Republicans
in the House are happy to join President Johnson in pressing for a prompt and
exhaustive public airing of the subject.
# # #
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
wor
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1966
Six weeks ago, at a press conference called to acquaint you with details of
our Republican-sponsored election reform bill, I reported having heard disturbing
rumors about The President's Club and political favors for its members. I suggest-
ed that the press, as well as we of the minority, had an obligation to look into
this and see if there were any connection between such things as lucrative governe
ment contracts, anit-trust actions or important executive decisions and large
contributions to the President's Club.
I may have made a mistake. In the excitement that followed, Mr. Goodell's
disclosure of the Anheuser-Busch affair, in which the Justice Department dropped
its suit against the company after $10,000 had been contributed by its executives --
following which the Vice President and everybody concerned flew out to the ballgame
in the Anheuser-Busch company plane -- our election reform legislation got very
little attention. But, on the other hand, the need for such legislation -- right
now, at this session, to police the remaining days of the 1966 campaign and, even
more urgently, the 1968 Presidential contest -- has been convincingly demonstrated
in the past six weeks.
First, we had the Anheuser-Busch case, $10,000.
Next, a million dollar poverty contract won by a President's Club
executive's firm over more qualified contenders.
Then, Mr. Rumsfeld revealed the curious combination of $25,000 from a
big contractor's family and the White House's unusual interest in Project Mohole --
all of which the Johnson-Humphrey Administration brushed off as coincidences and
partisan politics.
I believe that where there is smoke, there must be fire. And I think
the smoke is getting so thick in the inner sanctum of the President's Club that
it must be quite uncomfortable for many members.
Now Mr. Goodell and Mr. Rumsfeld have reported to the House additional
evidence of political favoritism and skullduggery involving heavy donors to the
President's Club and the virtually unaudited spending of billions - not millions
but billions --- of the people's money, I have also received scores of communi-
cations from citizens, many of whom frankly say they are good Democrats, who are
shocked and sickened by what they know has been going on.
-2-
In baseball you get three strikes. The President's Club doesn't deserve
more than four. It was a mistake from the outset, as I am sure President Johnson
now realizes, to mix money and honor under the symbol of the White House, which
belongs to all the people.
I agree with the editorial in last Monday's New York Times which stated
that President Johnson's press conference denials won't do. "The concern is not
narrowly partisan," The Times said. "Basically, it derives from respect for Mr.
Johnson's name and office. Both are placed in needless jeopardy by a political
fund-raising operation that provides a nexus for influence seekers and carries the
constant risk of scandal."
I therefore respectfully call upon President Johnson to suspend the opera-
tion of The President's Club without further delay. He should declare plainly
and publicly that no more contributions will be accepted by the President's Club
and that any received will be returned, The accounts of the President's Club
should be frozen. Its books should be thrown open to the press without further
transfers of funds in or out, until such time as a thorough and impeceably
independent audit can be conducted and its findings fully disclosed.
This step, if undertaken promptly and in good faith, will spare both
President Johnson and those who support him politically and financially from
further embarrassment. There are ample opportunities for citizens to make
political contributions through the traditional national, state and local com-
mittees of their chosen party. We certainly are not discouraging this, the life-
blood of our two-party system. But the Presidency, whoever may occupy this
high office, should stand at least an arm's length from the counting table.
Unfortunately, the 2-to-1 Democratic majorities in this Congress seem
extremely reluctant even to proceed with fullscale hearings on the election
reform bill President Johnson himself proposes. It isn't very realistic to think
ing
that the kind of thorough investigation which the scandals surround/the President's
Club demand will be conducted by any of its standing committees. I therefore
call upon the Congress, and will introduce appropriate legislation as soon as it
can be carefully drafted, to create a select committee, completely bipartisan in
character, to explore all of the evidence and allegations of favoritism and
possible corruption clouding the President's Club to date. They will continue
to unfold unless President Johnson, and President Johnson alone, finally decides
that what's a good thing for the Democrats isn't good for the country.
If the President and this Democratic-controlled Congress fail to act, the
American people have one other choice -- electing a Republican majority to the
House of Representatives this November. Then we can really start cleaning things
up.
IIIII
willing
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
8 February 1967
The House Republican Policy Committee urges the immediate consideration and
enactment of the Election Reform Act of 1967 which has been sponsored and introduced
by the Republican Members.
With each new disclosure at the recent Bobby Baker trial, the need for Election
Reform legislation has been reemphasized and underlined. There is today a crisis of
confidence with respect to campaign contributions. Election Reform legislation must
be enacted well in advance of the 1968 election.
In the last Congress, the Republican Policy Committee adopted a statement
urging the enactment of this legislation. The Republican Leadership introduced a bill
that would modify and improve the Administration measure and the Republican Members
of the House Administration Committee did everything in their power to get a meaning-
ful and workable bill reported. As a result of their efforts, a bill that incorporate
the major provisions of the Republican measure was reported by a Subcommittee. At the
following meeting of the full committee, all Republican Members were present and ready
to vote to report the bill for immediate Floor consideration. Unfortunately, the
Democratic members would not join the Republicans so for that session of Congress,
this important measure died.
The Election Reform Act of 1967 includes the following Republican proposals.
1. A five-member bipartisan "ederal Elections Commission is established to
receive reports and statements regarding campaign contributions and exnenditures.
2. The Commission has been granted full and complete authority to enforce the
provisions of the Act through appropriate investigation and audit. It is also author-
ized to make reports and statements available for public inspection and to prepare and
publish summaries and reports.
3. Every candidate, and every political committee that accepts contributions
or make expenditures of $1,000 or more in any calendar year, is required to report
all contributions and expenditures.
4. Donations of more than $5,000 to any one candidate or committee in any
single year are prohibited.
5. The present meaningless ceiling on total contributions to and expenditures
by political committees is removed.
6. Campaign contributions by organizations or associations financially
supported by a corporation, trade association or labor organization are prohibited.
7. Conventions, primaries and party caucuses have been placed under the
reporting and disclosure provisions of the bill.
8. The disclosure of gifts or honorariums is required of candidates for the
House and Senate as well as incumbents.
The appropriate studies regarding election reform have been completed.
Detailed hearings have been held. The need for the legislation has been established.
A good bill was reported in the last Congress. The time for legislative action has
arrived. We urge the Democratic Leadership to schedule the Election Reform Act as
one of the first pieces of legislation to receive Floor consideration.
U.S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
8 February 1967
The House Republican Policy Committee urges the immediate establishment
of a select Committee on Standards and Conduct.
This Committee should be composed of twelve Members divided evenly between
the Majority and Minority parties. It should be empowered to recommend rules
and regulations that it deams necessary to ensure proper standards of conduct
by Members and by officers and employees of the House. It should have the
authority to investigate alleged breaches of conduct, recommend appropriate
action and report violations of law to the proper Federal and State authorities.
In the closing hours of the 89th Congress, a select Committee on Standards
and Conduct was established. This was an important first step. Now, without
further delay, this Committee should be reestablished.
Over the past few years, a handful of highly publicized allegations of
misconduct against a few Members of Congress and a few employees have cast a
dark cloud over the entire Congress. As long as this House does not have an
effective body that can investigate and resolve allegations of misconduct, the
American people will continue to have serious questions regarding the integrity
of the Members and their ability or willingness to ferret out those who are
guilty of misconduct. Moreover, until such time as a Committee on Standards
and Conduct is created and a code of ethics and standards of conduct are estab-
lished, proceedings that are brought against an individual or a Member may he
subject to attack on the basis that they are "witch hunts or politically
inspired.
Justice for those accused as well as the ever mounting public demand
for the highest standards of personal conduct makes imperative the immediate
establishment of an effective Committee on Standards and Conduct. We urge the
Democratic Leadership to schedule this legislation without further delay.
IIIII
WIIIII
U. S. HOUSE
OF
REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
8 February 1967
The House Republican Policy Committee urges the immediate consideration and
enactment of the Election Reform Act of 1967 which has been sponsored and introduced
by the Republican Members.
With each new disclosure at the recent Bobby Baker trial, the need for Election
Reform legislation has been reemphasized and underlined. There is today a crisis of
confidence with respect to campaign contributions. Election Reform legislation must
be enacted well in advance of the 1968 election.
In the last Congress, the Republican Policy Committee adopted a statement
urging the enactment of this legislation. The Republican Leadership introduced a bill
that would modify and improve the Administration measure, and the Republican Members
of the House Administration Committee did everything in their power to get a meaning-
ful and workable bill reported. As a result of their efforts, a bill that incorporate
the major provisions of the Republican measure was reported by a Subcommittee. At the
following meeting of the full committee, all Republican Members were present and ready
to vote to report the bill for immediate Floor consideration. Unfortunately, the
Democratic members would not Join the Republicans so for that session of Congress,
this important measure died.
The Election Reform Adt of 1967 includes the following Republican proposals:
1. A\five-member bipartisan Federal Elections Commission is established to
receive reports and statements regarding campaign contributions and expenditures.
2. The Commission has been granted full and complete authority to enforce the
provisions of the Act through appropriate investigation and audit. It is also author-
ized to make reports and statements available for nublic inspection and to prepare and
publish summaries and reports.
3. Every candidate, and every political committee that accepts contributions
or make expenditures of $1,000 or more in any calendar year, is required to report
all contributions and expenditures.
Donations of more than $5,000 to any one candidate or committee in any
single year are prohibited.
5. The present meaningless ceiling on total contributions to and expenditures
by political committees is removed.
6. Campaign contributions by organizations or associations financially
supported by a corporation, trade association or labor organization are prohibited.
7. Conventions, primaries and party caucuses have been placed under the
reporting and disclosure provisions of the bill.
8. The disclosure of gifts or honorariums is required of candidates for the
House and Senate as well as incumbents.
The appropriate studies regarding election reform have been completed.
Detailed hearings have been held. The need for the legislation has been established.
A good bill was reported in the last Congress. The time for legislative action has
arrived. We urge the Democratic Leadership to schedule the Election Reform Act as
one of the first pieces of legislation to receive Floor consideration.
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
MAY 10, 1967
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH., HOUSE MINORITY LEADER
Since there is no present opportunity to repeal the presidential campaign
subsidy law, I hope the Conference Committee agrees as a minimum to stay the
effect of the Act until safeguards can be written into it.
I have not for a momemt given up the idea that the law be repealed, but
certainly the Senate insistence on guidelines is a major improvement.
I think the presidential campaign subsidy law is a bad mistake. Congress
should reverse itself and wipe this law off the books before it ever begins
operating. We should instead write into law an income tax deduction for political
contributions up to $100 as an incentive to small contributors. The dangers in
the campaign subsidy law are so great as to threaten the destruction of the
American political system. Instead of moving toward clean elections, we might
well accomplish the opposite.
It should be noted that the White House lobbied against repeal of the
campaign subsidy law and thus helped to delay passage of the investment tax credit
bill by the Senate. Yet the President and the Secretary of the Treasury stressed
the need for swift action on the investment tax credit bill when it was before the
House. The House passed the tax credit bill March 16, nearly two months ago. The
White House must share the blame for the delay in Senate action on it.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
MAY 10, 1967
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH., HOUSE MINORITY LEADER
Since there is no present opportunity to repeal the presidential campaign
subsidy law, I hope the Conference Committee agrees as a minimum to stay the
effect of the Act until safeguards can be written into it.
I have not for a momemt given up the idea that the law be repealed, but
certainly the Senate insistence on guidelines is a major improvement.
I think the presidential campaign subsidy law is a bad mistake. Congress
should reverse itself and wipe this law off the books before it ever begins
operating. We should instead write into law an income tax deduction for political
contributions up to $100 as an incentive to small contributors. The dangers in
the campaign subsidy law are so great as to threaten the destruction of the
American political system. Instead of moving toward clean elections, we might
well accomplish the opposite.
It should be noted that the White House lobbied against repeal of the
campaign subsidy law and thus helped to delay passage of the investment tax credit
bill by the Senate. Yet the President and the Secretary of the Treasury stressed
the need for swift action on the investment tax credit bill when it was before the
House. The House passed the tax credit bill March 16, nearly two months ago. The
White House must share the blame for the delay in Senate action on it.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
Friday, May 26, 1967
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH., HOUSE MINORITY LEADER
I have grave reservations about the wisdom of direct congressional appropri-
ations for the financing of presidential election campaigns.
It is questionable, first of all, whether this is a legitimate use of the
taxpayers' dollars. There is reason to wonder, too, whether such a system would
not "blow the lid off" presidential campaign spending. The politicians could
well have a vested interest in federal spending for campaign purposes.
I find merit, however, in some of the other provisions of the President's
campaign financing proposal.
I strongly favor the provision which would preserve the voting privilege in
presidential elections for those citizens who have moved from one state to
another between elections and would otherwise be deprived of their right to vote.
I also believe the President's proposal of a tax credit for small voluntary
contributions is constructive but the ceiling is unrealistic.
This, I think, is the nub of the matter. Congress should greatly encourage
small voluntary contributions instead of going directly to the Treasury for
campaign financing.
On balance, I think the House Republican Election Reform Act of 1967 is
superior to either the President's bill or Russell Long's tax checkoff idea which
Congress has shelved.
The Republican bill, along with other moves to assure clean elections,
would provide for tax deduction up to $100 for voluntary political contributions.
This is basically the best route toward clean elections for America.
If the President really wants election reform, he might well look at a
bipartisan bill which was reported out by the Elections Subcommittee of the House
Administration Committee last year. This legislation is reflected in the
Election Reform Act of 1967 introduced by House Republicans.
We must have action in this area. If this legislation is not enacted this
session, it should be adopted early next year in time for the 1968 election.
#H
8 November 1967
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN I. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE URGES PROMPT CONSIDERATION OF CLEAN
10
ELECTIONS LEGISLATION
Clean Elections legislation must not be sidetracked for another year. On
June 27, 1967, a bipartisan Election Reform Bill, H.R. 11233, was reported by a Sub-
committee of the House Administration Committee. This legislation contains the basic
reforms advocated and supported by President Johnson and the Republica Nongressional
Leadership. It is similar in content to the degislation that died in Committee after
it was favorably reported by the Subcommittee in the closing weeks of the last Congress.
The next Presidential and Congressional elections are less than one year away. Con-
gressional action cannot be delaved this legislation is to be in effect and opera-
tive during the 1968 campaigns
For some time, there has been general agreement that the laws dealing with
election campaigns should be revised and updated. The Federal Corrupt Practices Act
was enacted in 1925. The Hatch Act was passed 27 years ago. ecent studies such as
the 1962 Report of President Kennedy's Commission on Campaign Costs reveal that present
laws invite evasion and are filled with loopholes. The 18 grave concern that unless
there is basic reform, public confidence in the lection process will be impadred.
In response to mounting public demand for election reform legislation,
President Johnson pledged in his 1966 State of the Union Message:
"I will submit legislation to revise the present whreal stic restrictions
on contributions--to prohibit the endless profiferation of committees,
bringing local and state committees under the act and to attach strong
teeth and severe penalties to the requirement of full disclosure of
contributions.'
In May of 1966, both the President and the House Republican Policy Committee
urged the enactment of Election Reform legislation and specific proposals were intro-
duced. In calling for this legislation, the Republican Policy Committee noted:
"Reform in this area is long overdue. Legislation that will correct
the defects in the law and permit vigorous enforcement must be enacted."
(over)
The 1967 Republican State of the Union Appraisal stated:
"Congress must also move ahead on the President's year-old pledge for
a Clean Election law. Such a law must be on the books before 1968. "
At the start of the 90th Congress, the Policy Committee urged the House
Leadership "to schedule the Election Reform Act as one of the first pieces of legis-
lation to receive Floor consideration."
And in May of this year, President Johnson stated:
"A sweeping overhaul of the laws governing election campaigns should no
longer be delayed."
The bipartisan Election Reform Bill, H.R. 11233, that has been reported by
the Subcommittee of the House Administration Committee is sound legislation. Through
the incorporation of the following major Republican provisions, honest reporting of
campaign contributions and expenditures and streamlined enforcement procedures would
be ensured.
1. A five-member bipartisan Federal Elections Commission is established to
receive reports and statements regarding campaign contributions and expenditures.
2. The Commission has been granted full and complete authority to enforce
the provisions of the Act. It is also authorized to make reports and statements
available for public inspection and to prepare and publish summaries and reports.
3. Candidates for Federal office and political committees supporting such
candidates that accept contributions or make expenditures exceeding $1,000 in any
calendar year, are required to report contributions and expenditures.
4. Donations by an individual of more than $5,000 to any candidate or any
committee supporting such candidate in any calendar year are prohibited.
5. Campaign contributions by political action committees financially
supported by a corporation, trade association or labor organization are regulated.
6. Conventions, primaries and party caucuses have been placed under the
reporting and disclosure provisions of the bill.
7. The disclosure of gifts or honorariums of more than $100 is required of
candidates for the House and Senate as well as incumbents.
In view of the urgency of this legislation and the President's early support,
we are surprised and dismayed that the Election Reform Bill does not now appear on
the Administration's list of MUST legislation. To be enacted this year, the Election
Reform Bill must have the continued and enthusiastic support of President Johnson.
The American public demands and deserves an election process that commands respect
and confidence. Moreover, clean elections must be practiced at home as well as
preached abroad.
8 November 1967
IIIIIII
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN I. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE URGES PROMPT CONSIDERATION OF CLEAN
10
ELECTIONS LEGISLATION
Clean Elections legislation must not be sidetracked for another year. On
June 27, 1967, a bipartisan Election Reform Bill, H.R. 11233, was reported by a Sub-
committee of the House Administration Committee. This legislation contains the basic
reforms advocated and supported by President Johnson and the Republican Congressional
Leadership. It is similar in content to the legislation that died in Committee after
it was favorably reported by the Subcommittee in the closing weeks of the last Congress.
The next Presidential and Congressional elections are less than one year away. Con-
gressional action cannot be delayed if this legislation is to be in effect and opera-
tive during the 1968 campaigns.
For some time, there has been general agreement that the laws dealing with
election campaigns should be revised and updated. The Federal Corrupt Practices Act
was enacted in 1925. The Hatch Act was passed 27 years ago. Recent studies such as
the 1962 Report of President Kennedy's Commission on Campaign Costs reveal that present
laws invite evasion and are filled with loopholes. There is grave concern that unless
there is basic reform, public confidence in the election process will be impaired.
In response to mounting public demand for election reform legislation,
President Johnson pledged in his 1966 State of the Union Message:
"I will submit legislation to revise the present unrealistic restrictions
on contributions--to prohibit the endless proliferation of committees,
bringing local and state committees under the act--and to attach strong
teeth and severe penalties to the requirement of full disclosure of
contributions."
In May of 1966, both the President and the House Republican Policy Committee
urged the enactment of Election Reform legislation and specific proposals were intro-
duced. In calling for this legislation, the Republican Policy Committee noted:
"Reform in this area is long overdue. Legislation that will correct
the defects in the law and permit vigorous enforcement must be enacted."
(over)
The 1967 Republican State of the Union Appraisal stated:
"Congress must also move ahead on the President's year-old pledge for
a Clean Election law. Such a law must be on the books before 1968. "
At the start of the 90th Congress, the Policy Committee urged the House
Leadership "to schedule the Election Reform Act as one of the first pieces of legis-
lation to receive Floor consideration."
And in May of this year, President Johnson stated:
"A sweeping overhaul of the laws governing election campaigns should no
longer be delayed."
The bipartisan Election Reform Bill, H.R. 11233, that has been reported by
the Subcommittee of the House Administration Committee is sound legislation. Through
the incorporation of the following major Republican provisions, honest reporting of
campaign contributions and expenditures and streamlined enforcement procedures would
be ensured.
1. A five-member bipartisan Federal Elections Commission is established to
receive reports and statements regarding campaign contributions and expenditures.
2. The Commission has been granted full and complete authority to enforce
the provisions of the Act. It is also authorized to make reports and statements
available for public inspection and to prepare and publish summaries and reports.
3. Candidates for Federal office and political committees supporting such
candidates that accept contributions or make expenditures exceeding $1,000 in any
calendar year, are required to report contributions and expenditures.
4. Donations by an individual of more than $5,000 to any candidate or any
committee supporting such candidate in any calendar year are prohibited.
5. Campaign contributions by political action committees financially
supported by a corporation, trade association or labor organization are regulated.
6. Conventions, primaries and party caucuses have been placed under the
reporting and disclosure provisions of the bill.
7. The disclosure of gifts or honorariums of more than $100 is required of
candidates for the House and Senate as well as incumbents.
In view of the urgency of this legislation and the President's early support,
we are surprised and dismayed that the Election Reform Bill does not now appear on
the Administration's list of MUST legislation. To be enacted this year, the Election
Reform Bill must have the continued and enthusiastic support of President Johnson.
The American public demands and deserves an election process that commands respect
and confidence. Moreover, clean elections must be practiced at home as well as
preached abroad.
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
Thomas H. Kuchel
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Melvin R. Laird
Margaret Chase Smith
Press Release
of Wisconsin
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
H. Allen Smith
Milton R. Young
of California
of North Dakota
Bob Wilson
Hugh Scott
of California
of Pennsylvania
Charles E. Goodell
of New York
PRESIDING:
Richard H. Poff
of Virginia
The National Chairman
Ray C. Bliss
William C. Cramer
Issued following a
of Florida
Leadership Meeting
November 16, 1967
MR. FORD.
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
In the course of our Appraisal of the State of the Union last January, Senator
Dirksen and I said: "Congress must also move ahead on the President's year-old
pledge for a Clean Election Law. Such a law must be on the books before 1968."
Recently, the House Republican Policy Committee in a strong, clear statement
also urged prompt consideration of clean elections legislation.
We cannot emphasize too strongly the need for passage of legislation of this
kind. Immediate action is required of Congress if such reforms are to take effect
and be operative during the 1968 campaigns.
It should be emphasized that this effort is genuinely bi-partisan. The several
reforms spelled out have been advocated and supported by both the Johnson-Humphrey
Administration and the Republican Leadership of the Congress.
It should be emphasized equally that public confidence in the electoral process
will suffer seriously if this reform legislation is not enacted into public law.
The bill as originally proposed contained an encouraging number of desirable
features. To these, the Republicans in Congress added major provisions of importance
and practical value. It is for these reasons that, as the House Republican Policy
Committee put it, "
we are surprised and dismayed that the Election Reform Bill
does not now appear on the Administration's list of MUST legislation."
We hope - very much - that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration and the Democratic
majorities in the Congress have lost neither their wish nor their will that clean
elections shall become a standard "to which the wise and honest can repair."
Therefore, Mr. President, our Question of the Week:
"Why the delay in assuring clean elections?"
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
MR. DIRKSEN.
Page - 2- -
Republicans in the Senate stand firmly beside those in the House of Representatives
in their unqualified support of election reform.
Time, as never before, is of the essence if a measure of this kind is to be
enacted into law and if its provisions are to be effective in the course of the
campaign months just ahead.
Congress cannot ask of other Americans what it is not prepared itself to observe.
Unless this Congress is prepared to take this necessary action in campaign reform,
it cannot require of others that they toe-the-line in other regards. We must, in
short, practice what we preach. We cannot, fairly, urge upon others the conduct
of clean elections unless we make very certain that our own house is in order, unless
we assure the American people that we are fully and willingly prepared to set rules of
conduct for ourselves before we attempt to reform others.
As public office is a public trust, so anything that causes a loss of confidence
in the seeking of public office and the conduct of it thereafter produces a steady
erosion of faith in our free society.
Needless to say, morality cannot be legislated, ethics cannot be established
by law. Political campaigning and political office holding can win public confidence
and achieve the people's respect only as the individuals involved set a worthy example
to all others.
Periodically, however, circumstances and the questionable practices of a few
require review by the many. At such times, helpful legislation can often produce
genuine improvement in the campaigning for office and the conduct of public affairs.
We are mystified by the passage of so many months since this bi-partisan
legislation was first enthusiastically proposed.
Therefore, Mr. President, our Question of the Week:
"Why the delay in assuring clean elections?"
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
Thomas H. Kuchel
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Melvin R. Laird
Margaret Chase Smith
Press Release
of Wisconsin
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
H. Allen Smith
Milton R. Young
of California
of North Dakota
Bob Wilson
Hugh Scott
of California
of Pennsylvania
Charles E. Goodell
of New York
PRESIDING:
Richard H. Poff
of Virginia
The National Chairman
Ray C. Bliss
William C. Cramer
Issued following a
of Florida
Leadership Meeting
November 16, 1967
MR. FORD.
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
In the course of our Appraisal of the State of the Union last January, Senator
Dirksen and I said: "Congress must also move ahead on the President's year-old
pledge for a Clean Election Law. Such a law must be on the books before 1968."
Recently, the House Republican Policy Committee in a strong, clear statement
also urged prompt consideration of clean elections legislation.
We cannot emphasize too strongly the need for passage of legiblation of this
kind. Immediate action is required of Congress if such reforms are to take effect
and be operative during the 1968 campaigns.
It should be emphasized that this effort is genumely bi-partisan. The several
reforms spelled out have been advocated and supported by both the Johnson-Humphrey
Administration and the Republican Leadership of the Congress.
It should be emphasized equally that public confidence in the electoral process
will suffer seriously if this reform legislation is not enacted into public law.
The bill as originally proposed contained an encouraging number OF desirable
features. To these, the Republicans in Congress added major provisions of importance
and practical value. It is for these reasons that, as the House epublican Policy
Committee put it, " we are surprised and dismayed that the Election Reform Bill
does not now appear on the Administration's list of MUST legislation.'
We hope - very much - that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration and the Democratic
majorities in the Congress have lost neither thei wish nor their will that clean
elections shall become a standard "to which the wise and honestican repair."
Therefore, Mr. President, our Question of the Week:
"Why the delay in assuring clean elections?"
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
MR. DIRKSEN.
Page - 2 -
Republicans in the Senate stand firmly beside those in the House of Representatives
in their unqualified support of election reform.
Time, as never before, is of the essence if a measure of this kind is to be
enacted into law and if its provisions are to be effective in the course of the
campaign months just ahead.
Congress cannot ask of other Americans what it is not prepared itself to observe.
Unless this Congress is prepared to take this necessary action in campaign reform,
it cannot require of others that they toe-the-line in other regards. We must, in
short, practice what we preach. We cannot, fairly, urge upon others the conduct
of clean elections unless we make very certain that our own house is in order, unless
we assure the American people that we are fully and willingly prepared to set rules of
conduct for ourselves before we attempt to reform others.
As public office is a public trust, so anything that causes a loss of confidence
in the seeking of public office and the conduct of it thereafter produces a steady
erosion of faith in our free society.
Needless to say, morality cannot be legislated, ethics cannot be established
by law. Political campaigning and political office holding can win public confidence
and achieve the people's respect only as the individuals involved set a worthy example
to all others.
Periodically, however, circumstances and the questionable practices of a few
require review by the many. At such times, helpful legislation can often produce
genuine improvement in the campaigning for office and the conduct of public affairs.
We are mystified by the passage of so many months since this bi-partisan
legislation was first enthusiastically proposed.
Therefore, Mr. President, our Question of the Week:
"Why the delay in assuring clean elections?"
30 January 1968
IIIII
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE URCES T.V. DEBATES BETWEEN PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATES AND ENACTMENT OF CLEAN ELECTIONS LEGISLATION
The 1968 Election is of critical importance. Errors in judgment, problems
evaded, hard decisions too long postponed demand attention. Administration policies
relating to the war, to the deterioration of the dollar, crime, riots, spending, taxes
and inflation have proven inagquate and in some cases seriously in error. The "Great
Society's" slickly packaged programs and/widely heralded theories have not proven out
in practice.
This Country is adriftion a sea of unkept promises. As John W. Gardner
observed before he resigned as ecretary of Health, Education and Welfare, there is
bitterness and anger toward our institutions that wells up when high hopes turn sour.
No observer of the modern scene has failed to note the prevalent cynicism concerning
all leaders, all officials, all social institutions. That çynicísm is continually
fed and renewed by the rage of people who expected too mu and got too little."
This Country cannot afford the luxury of a Presidential Campaign that is
marked by broad campaign oratory and a paucity of meaningful debate. In order that
there may be an indepth díscussio and a penearating examinatio of the major issues,
Congress must enact legislation that will suspend Section 315 of the Communications
Act of 1934 as it applies to Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. This
legislation would permit the T.V. networks to present to the American people in 1968,
as they did in 1960, a debate between the leading candidates.
Also, without further delay, Clean Elections legislation must be enacted into
law. On June 27, 1967, a bipartisan Election Reform Bill, H.R. 11233, was reported
by a subcommittee of the House Administration Committee. It was similar in content
to the legislation that died in committee after it was favorably reported by the sub-
committee in the closing weeks of the 89th Congress. It contains the basic reforms
(over)
advocated and supported by the Republican Congressional Leadership.
H.R. 11233 is sound legislation. Through the incorporation of the following
major Republican provisions, honest reporting of campaign contributions and expen-
ditures and streamlined enforcement procedures would be ensured.
1. A five-member bipartisan Federal Elections Commission is established to
receive reports and statements regarding campaign contributions and expenditures.
2. The Commission is given full and complete authority to enforce the
provisions of the Act. It is authorized to make reports and statements available
for public inspection and to prepare and publish summaries and reports.
3. Candidates for Federal office and political committees supporting such
candidates that accept contributions or make expenditures exceeding $1,000 in any
calendar year, are required to report contributions and expenditures.
4. Donations by an individual of more than $5,000 to any candidate or any
committee supporting such candidate in any calendar year are prohibited.
5. Campaign contributions by political action committees financially sup-
ported by a corporation, trade association or labor organization are regulated.
6. Conventions, primaries and party caucuses are placed under the reporting
and disclosure provisions of the bill.
7. The disclosure of gifts or honorariums of more than $100 is required of
candidates for the House and Senate as well as incumbents.
The American people must be provided with an election process that commands
respect and confidence. Promises, details of past performance, hopes for the future
that are hammered out on the anvil of debate will provide the American people with a
meaningful record upon which an enlightened choice can be made. Thereafter, this
choice must be registered accurately in an election process that is above reproach.
For two years, the Republican Members of the House Administration Committee
have done everything that they can to get the Clean Elections legislation reported
from Committee. There is no more time to be lost. This absolutely essential legis-
lation, together with legislation that suspends Section 315 of the Communications
Act, must be scheduled for immediate Floor consideration if it is to be in effect
and operative during the 1968 campaign.
18 September 1968
MINIC
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON ELECTORAL COLLEGE REFORM
The House Republican Policy Committee urges the prompt consideration of
electoral college reform legislation. Due to the defects in the present electoral
system, the American people are confronted with a potentially dangerous situation
every four years. The final selection of the President is subject to numerous uncer-
tainties. A stalemate in that selection or a protracted period of doubt and comfesion
are alarming possibilities.
Under our present system, the President is elected by ballot in the Electoral
College. Every State is represented by electors aqual in number to the State S re-
presentation in the House and Senate. These electors are selected 1am the manner
determined by the individual state legislatures. In addition the District of Columbia
is granted three electo by operation of the 23rd Amendment. A candidate for Presid-
ent must receive a majdrity of the 538 ballots cast, or 270 votes, to be elected.
The Electoral College never assembles in one place, but rather meets separately in
fifty-one jurisdictions. There is only one round of balloting. If no candidate
receives a majority, then the House UT Representatives elects the President and the
Senate elects the Vice President.
The present electoral college system is dangerously inadequate. For example:
1. It has permitted a candidate with fewer popular votes than another
candidate to be elected President.
2. It has allowed electors to disregard the mandate of their election
in casting an electoral ballot.
3. The winner of the plurality of the popular vote in a state wins all
of the electoral votes in that state regardless of the vote received
by the other candidates.
4. It has required the House of Representatives to decide elections when
no candidate received a majority of electoral votes. In this process,
each state, regardless of population, is given one vote.
(over)
5. Under the present system, the President and Vice President that are
finally chosen can be from different political parties.
6. There is no provision made in the present law for the selection of
a successor in the event of the death of a presidential or vice
presidential candidate in the forty-one-day period between election
day in November and the meeting of the electors in December. Simil-
arly, the situation that would be presented by the death of a pres-
idential or vice presidential candidate after the meeting of the
electors but before the counting of the votes is not specifically
covered by law.
There have been a number of plans proposed to correct the deficiencies in
the present system. One plan retains the electoral votes of the states, abolishes
the office of elector and automatically awards the electoral votes of a State to the
popular winner in that State. A second, the "district" plan continues both the office
of elector and a State's electoral votes but provides that the electoral votes are
to be spread among equipopulous districts (equal in number to the number of Represen-
tatives in the House) plus two at-large districts. The winner of each district auto-
matically receives its electoral vote. A third plan abolishes the office of elector
but retains the state's electoral votes which are divided among the candidates in
proportion to their shares of the total popular vote within the state. And a fourth
plan proposes that the President be elected by direct vote of the people. Under this
plan, the present electoral college system would be abolished.
The fundamental and serious defects in the present system require the immed-
iate analysis of proposed reforms and the prompt Congressional consideration of appro-
priate constitutional amendments. This nation's method of selecting its chief execu-
tive must be responsive to the demands of the space age and consistent with our
cherished principles of self-government.
Certainly, one of the first things the next Congress must do is solve this
serious problem and then, without further delay, present to the American people a
workable plan.
18 September 1968
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON ELECTORAL COLLEGE REFORM
The House Republican Policy Committee urges the prompt consideration of
electoral college reform legislation. Due to the defects in the present electoral
system, the American people are confronted with a potentially dangerous situation
every four years. The final selection of the President is subject to numerous uncer-
tainties. A stalemate in that selection or a protracted period of doubt and confusion
are alarming possibilities.
Under our present system, the President is elected by ballot in the Electoral
College. Every State is represented by electors equal in number to the State's re-
presentation in the House and Senate. These electors are selected in the manner
determined by the individual state legislatures. In addition, the District of Columbia
is granted three electors by operation of the 23rd Amendment. A candidate for Presid-
ent must receive a majority of the 538 ballots cast, or 270 votes, to be elected.
The Electoral College never assembles in one place, but rather meets separately in
fifty-one jurisdictions. There is only one round of balloting. If no candidate
receives a majority, then the House of Representatives elects the President and the
Senate elects the Vice President.
The present electoral college system is dangerously inadequate. For example:
1. It has permitted a candidate with fewer popular votes than another
candidate to be elected President.
2. It has allowed electors to disregard the mandate of their election
in casting an electoral ballot.
3. The winner of the plurality of the popular vote in a state wins all
of the electoral votes in that state regardless of the vote received
by the other candidates.
4. It has required the House of Representatives to decide elections when
no candidate received a majority of electoral votes. In this process,
each state, regardless of population, is given one vote.
(over)
5. Under the present system, the President and Vice President that are
finally chosen can be from different political parties.
6. There is no provision made in the present law for the selection of
a successor in the event of the death of a presidential or vice
presidential candidate in the forty-one-day period between election
day in November and the meeting of the electors in December. Simil-
arly, the situation that would be presented by the death of a pres-
idential or vice presidential candidate after the meeting of the
electors but before the counting of the votes is not specifically
covered by law.
There have been a number of plans proposed to correct the deficiencies in
the present system. One plan retains the electoral votes of the states, abolishes
the office of elector and automatically awards the electoral votes of a State to the
popular winner in that State. A second, the "district" plan continues both the office
of elector and a State's electoral votes but provides that the electoral votes are
to be spread among equipopulous districts (equal in number to the number of Represen-
tatives in the House) plus two at-large districts. The winner of each district auto-
matically receives its electoral vote. A third plan abolishes the office of elector
but retains the state's electoral votes which are divided among the candidates in
proportion to their shares of the total popular vote within the state. And a fourth
plan proposes that the President be elected by direct vote of the people. Under this
plan, the present electoral college system would be abolished.
The fundamental and serious defects in the present system require the immed-
iate analysis of proposed reforms and the prompt Congressional consideration of appro-
priate constitutional amendments. This nation's method of selecting its chief execu-
tive must be responsive to the demands of the space age and consistent with our
cherished principles of self-government.
Certainly, one of the first things the next Congress must do is solve this
serious problem and then, without further delay, present to the American people a
workable plan.
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
October 9, 1968
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, House Minority Leader
In a last ditch effort to get the dominant Democratic Majority to schedule
the Clean Elections and Congressional Reform legislation for Floor consideration
during this 90th Congress, the Republican Members have kept the House of
Representatives in continuous session for over twenty-four hours. During
this historic session, there have been some 36 quorum roll calls and six roll
call votes.
In order that the record may be absolutely clear with respect to this
important matter, the following pertinent information must be noted.
During this Congress the House Republican Members, Leadership and Policy
Committee have done everything that they can to get the Congressional
Reorganization and Clean Elections legislation to the House Floor. In the
89th Congress and again in this Congress, the Republican Policy Committee
repeatedly urged prompt action on both Clean Elections and Congressional
Reorganization legislation. The very first action of the House Republican Policy
Committee this year on July 30, 1968, was to adopt a statement demanding prompt
consideration of the Election Reform Bill and legislation that would permit
television debates between presidential candidates.
Significantly, it was only after a great deal of prodding by the Republican
Members of the House Administration Committee that the Election Reform Act of
1968, H.R. 11233, was finally reported from Committee. And prior to being
reported, the weak Election Reform proposal recommended by the Johnson-Humphrey
Administration was shelved in favor of the strong measure that was initially
developed by the Republican Members. It was only through the incorporation
of a number of Republican provisions that honest reporting of campaign contri-
butions and expenditures and streamlined enforcement procedures were ensured.
Despite the continuing efforts of Republican Members, the House Democratic
Leadership refused to schedule this vital legislation for Floor action. The
Congressional Reform Bill and the Clean Elections Bill were left to languish
in the Rules Committee. The prospects of legislative action prior to the 1968
election were very dim indeed.
(more)
-2-
This sorry situation was described in an October 3, 1968 Washington Post
Editorial entitled, "Obsolescence on the Hill." This editorial stated:
"It is deeply ironical that the Congress which has so signally
failed to meet its obligations, has also smothered the legislation
designed to modernize some of its procedures Though it is a mild
reform bill, the reactionary forces in the House seem determined to
kill it. Along with it in limbo is the constructive election reform
bill."
This then is the reason that in what appears to be the last week of the
90th Congress, the Republican Leadership has used an extraordinary, parliamentary
device in an attempt to break this essential legislation loose. And we promise
that when the American voters in the November election elect a Republican
Majority in the House of Representatives, the "straitjacket of obsolescence"
will be unstrapped and these bills will have a high priority in a Republican
Agenda for the 91st Congress.
###
a office Capy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE IN TUESDAY PM's--
January 7, 1969
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., Minority Leader, U.S. House of
Representatives.
On Monday the Congress in effect upheld the right of a presidential
elector to cast his vote for any candidate of his choice, regardless of the
wishes of the voters in his state.
This action dramatizes the urgent need for reforming the electoral
college system or abolishing it in favor of direct popular election of the
President.
I would like to see Congress quickly set in motion the steps necessary
to modify or replace the electoral college system. Since this involves amending
the U.S. Constitution, a long time-consuming process, it is important that the
Congress act soon in order to allow sufficient time for ratification by the
states of the proposed constitutional change.
I personally have not decided what action should be taken but there is
no doubt in my mind that Congress and the states should overhaul or replace the
electoral college system before the 1972 Presidential election. To that end,
congressional hearings on the matter should proceed expeditiously so that the
Congress may act soon on the basis of committee recommendations,
###
FORD 3 LIBRARY GERALD
Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-
February 21, 1969
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, Republican Leader, U. S. House of Representatives
I hope Congress will be as realistic about Electoral College Reform as
President Nixon has been in his Message on the subject.
I think the President has taken exactly the right approach to the problem.
It is unrealistic to expect that a Constitutional Amendment proposing direct
popular election of the President will receive two-thirds approval in the Congress
and approval by three-fourths of the states. Therefore the most sensible way to
proceed is to draft an alternate plan which abides by the original concept of
federalism and will attract the broadest possible support.
While I personally have leaned toward direct popular election of the
President, I have consistently contended that inability to achieve that change
should not stand in the way of improving the manner in which the American people
elect a President.
I therefore heartily endorse the basic point made by President Nixon-that we
should proceed to achieve a solution to the fundamental problems involved rather
than get tangled in interminable controversy.
IIIII
IIIIIIE
U. S. HOUSE
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
91st Congress
February 25, 1969
First Session
Statement Number 1
STATEMENT ON CLEAN ELECTIONS LEGISLATION
The House Republican Policy Committee urges the immediate
consideration and passage of election reform legislation.
For the past three years the Republican Leadership, the
Republican Policy Committee and the Republican Members of the House
Administration Committee have unanimously urged the enactment of
election reform legislation. Studies have been conducted; detailed
hearings have been held; the urgent need for meaningful reform
legislation has been clearly established. Action is long overdue.
We urge the prompt enactment of appropriate election reform
legislation along the lines recommended in the statements previously
issued by the Republican Policy Committee.
GERALD LIBRARY
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
91st Congress
September 9, 1969
First Session
Statement Number 6
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY STATEMENT ON ELECTORAL COLLEGE REFORM
The House Republican Policy Committee urges the prompt submission to the
States of a Constitutional amendment to improve the Presidential election
mechanism.
A Constitutional crisis over the sellection of the Chief Executive was
narrowly averted in 1968. The will of a substantial majority of our people could
well have been thwarted because of the inadequacies of the electoral college
method of selection of the President and Vice President. The mechanisms which
were provided in the 18th Century are not adequate for the 20th Century.
Our electoral process was conceived at a time when conditions were far
different than they are today. In the first place, the framers of the Constitu-
tion expected the electoral college to be composed of outstanding citizens of each
state, exercising independent judgment in choosing a President. The development
of political parties largely ended the concept of elector independence. Even so,
the possibility of an elector voting contrary to popular mandate constitutes a
threat to the democratic Presidential election processes as we now know them.
Some of the inadequacies of the electoral college system are as follows:
1. It has permitted a candidate with fewer popular votes than another
candidate to be elected President.
2. It has allowed electors to disregard the mandate of their election
in casting an electoral ballot.
3. The winner of the plurality of the popular vote in a state wins all
of the electoral votes in that state regardless of the vote received
by the other candidates.
-2-
4. It has required the House of Representatives to decide elections
when no candidate received a majority of electoral votes. In this
process, each state, regardless of population, is given one vote.
5. Under the present system, the President and Vice President who are
finally chosen can be from different political parties.
6. There is no provision made in the present law for the selection of
a successor in the event of the death of a Presidential or Vice
Presidential candidate in the 41-day period between election day in
November and the meeting of the electors in December. Similarly,
the situation that would be presented by the death of a Presidential
or Vice Presidential candidate after the meeting of the electors
but before the counting of the votes is not specifically covered
by law.
It is essential that these and other weaknesses and failures in our
electoral techniques be corrected. Many proposals have been advanced for new
systems of election which would be an improvement over the present system.
Some of these are:
1. Direct election by popular vote.
2. Proportional distribution of electoral votes within states.
3. Distribution of the electoral vote by results in Congressional
districts.
Each of these plans has considerable merit and support. The direct
method has received the recommendation of the House Judiciary Committee. The
majority of the House Republican Policy Committee recommends as preferable the
direct method of election as proposed by the House Judiciary Committee.
The modernization of our Presidential election mechanism is imperative.
Reasonable and acceptable improvements to these outdated procedures must be
found if our democratic system is to be protected and fostered. Therefore, we
urge the immediate consideration and passage of an electoral reform amendment.
Distribution: House Halleries only Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Remarks of Rep. Gerald R. Ford (Michigan), House Republican Leader,
during general debate on the Voting Rights Act Extension.
Mr. Chairman, there are several points upon which I hope we can all agree as
we begin this debate.
First, we can surely agree with the statement of the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary that "Every American must have an equal right
to vote; no duty weighs upon the Congress more heavily than the duty to assure
that right."
The gentleman from New York's eloquence was echoed by my friend from Ohio who is
the ranking minority member on the committee, who said: "The elective franchise
is the cornerstone of our representative Republic."
We must agree with that, also.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to implement the guarantee of the
Constitution that no American's right to vote should be abridged because of his
race or color. At the time Congress took this action, it was apparent that the
right to vote of many Americans, mainly black Americans, was being abridged
on account of color; the remedy was compounded to fit the situation then pre-
vailing. A formula was devised, based upon the registration and voting pattern
of the 1964 presidential election. This formula was very carefully fashioned so
as to include certain Southern States and exclude others.
Leaping over all the debate of 4 years ago, it was generally accepted then by the
Congress that the unprecedented intervention of Federal authority, represented by
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, into the constitutional power of States to
determine the qualification of voters, would only be temporary. It was felt,
quite properly, that the extension of the right to vote would, in time, be self-
sustaining for those previously denied the franchise because of racial discrimina-
tion. Once they could vote they would, through the power of the ballot box, make
certain that they were never disenfranchised again -- this is the theory to which
most of us subscribe. Therefore, the key provisions of the 1965 Act were
supposed to become unnecessary and to expire in August, 1970 -- although there
would still be a probationary period under the law.
It is these key provisions, which single out six Southern States and portions of
several others, which the committee bill would have us continue unchanged for
another 5 years. We are told we must not even change the existing law so much as
to update its triggering formula from 1964 to the 1968 election statistics. Why
not?
The answer is incredible, but here it is: The 1964 formula should not be changed
because a 1960 formula would permit most, if not all, of those six or seven
Southern States to escape further discrimination from the Federal Government.
This is because they have now registered or now allow more than half their voting-
age citizens to vote -- because they have sucessfully passed the test Congress
set in 1965.
I am highly gratified that 000,000 -- perhaps as many as 1 million black Americans
in the seven specially covered States have been registered since the 89th Congress
passed the 1965 Voting Rights Act. I believe the 91st C ongress should not stop
there but should go forward to protect and expand this fundamental right for all
citizens, whatever their race, creed, or color, whereever they reside.
But I believe there are other fundamental rights that are equally precious to
Americans -- the right of equal justice under law, which surely applies to the
50 States of the Union as well as to individuals -- the presumption of innocence
which puts the burden of proof on the accuser the principle that there is one
law in this land for black and for white, for rich and for poor, for Georgian and
for Californiam.
If it is agreed we have a duty to implement the voting rights guaranteed by the
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
15th amendment and elsewhere in the Constitution, if we agree that substantial
-2-
progress has been made under the 1965 Act but that much room for improvement
remains, and if we are honest enough to admit that the present law, for all its'
commendable results, is discriminatory in spirit and in practice against one
part of our country, then let us get on with a nationwide standard in the spirit
of 1970 rather than 1964.
To do this President Nixon and his Administration have proposed, and I have
introduced -- with my distinguished colleágues -- 12695, the Nationvide
Voting Rights Bill which will be before us as a substitute for the Committee Bill.
Mr. Chairman, I have in my possession a letter dated December 10 from President
Nixon which I will not read at this point. I will insert it at this point in the
RECOND as a part of my remarks:
Hon. Gerald R. Ford
Minority Leader of the U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
Dear Jerry:
I am aware that the House is considering a five-year extension of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, and alternatively, as an amendment, the
Administration-proposed nationwide voting rights bill, 12695.
I strongly believe that the nationwide bill is superior because it is
more comprehensive and equitable. Therefore, I believe every effort must
be made to see that its essence, at least, prevails.
I would stress two critical points:
1. Instead of simply extending until 1975 the present Voting Rights
Act, which bans literacy tests in only seven states, as the Committee
bill would do, the nationwide bill would apply to all states until
January 1, 1974. It would extend protection to millions of citizens
not now covered and not covered under the Committee Bill.
2. H.R. 12695 assures that otherwide qualified voters would not be denied
the right to vote for President merely because they changed their state of
residence shortly before a national election.
In short, the nationwide bill would go a long way toward insuring a vote
for all our citizens in every state. Under it those millions who have
been voteless in the past and thus voiceless in our government would have
the legal tools they need to obtain and secure the franchise. Justice
requires no less.
For certainly an enlightened national legislature must admit that justice
is diminished for any citizen who does not have the right to vote for
those who govern him. There is no way for the disenfranchised to consider
themselves equal partners in our society.
This is true regardless of state or geographical location.
I urge that this message be brought to your colleagues, and I hope they
will join in our efforts to grant equal voting rights to all citizens of
the United States.
Sincerely,
RICHARD NIXON
Mr. Chairman, I am notivated not only by the idea of relieving the citizens and
authorities of a few States from unjust discrimination, but also by a firm con-
viction that the laws of the United States, which we write here, ought to be the
same for all 50 States; that the benefits of good laws should benefit citizens
everywhere; that the penalties for defiance or evasion should be the same
North, South, East and West; and that the right to vote may be -- and often is --
abridged in many ways and for many reasons in addition to race or color.
The right to vote for President and Vice President, and for other Federal
elective offices, is a nationwide right entitled to nationwide protection. Our
Nationwide Voting Rights Bill, to summarize it briefly, is nationwide in all of
its parts.
-3-
Specifically:
1. It would suspend, nationwide, all literacy tests in all 50 States until
January 1, 1974.
2. It would provide, nationwide, a uniform residence requirement for all
Americans who want to vote in Presidential elections.
3. It would grant, nationwide, statutory authority to the Attorney General to
station voting examiners and observers in any jurisdiction in all 50 States to
enforce the right to register and to vote.
4. It would provide, nationwide, statutory authority for the Attorney General
to start voting rights lawsuits in Federal Courts to prevent discriminatory
practices and suspend discriminatory voting laws in all 50 States
5. It would launch a nationvide study of the use of literacy tests or devices
and other corrupt practices which may abridge voting rights in all 50 States.
A national voting advisory commission would be created to report its findings
prior to the expiring of the nationwide literacy test suspension in 1974.
I cannot see anything among these five nationwide proposals to which any
reasonable person could disagree except, perhaps, the temporary ban on all
literacy tests for four years. Literacy tests are not wrong or unConstitutional
in themselves; what is illegal is their misuse to deny the right to vote not for
illiteracy but on account of race or color. Even the present Act does not
prohibit literacy tests in some 20 States that have them; it temporarily suspends
them in six or seven States under certain conditions.
Our Nationwide Voting Rights Bill says, in effect, if any State is to be
temporarily denied the right to have a literacy test of any kind, let's temporar-
ily deny this right to all States; let's see what effect this has on registration
of minority groups and upon voting patterns in all 50 States, and then let's
decide what to do about such tests and other devices for the nation as a whole.
What could be fairer ?
There is one provision of my Nationwide Voting Rights Bill which the proponents
of a simple 5-year extension do not, so far as I know, openly oppose; that is the
provision nationalizing residency requirements for Presidential elections. This
simply recognizes the fact of life in the super-highway and jet age; Americans
are the most mobile people in the world; more than 5 1/2 million of them were
prevented from voting in 1960 because they had recently moved. They thus lost
their vote in their place of previous residence too last to reacquire it in their
nev home.
With all deference to my Vice President's reservations, the news media keep
transient Americans just as well (or just as badly) informed of national issues
and national candidates as they do voters who stay in one precinct all their
lives. It makes no sense to deny anyone his right to vote because his employer,
or his child's health, or whatever, transfers him abruptly to another part of
the United States. The main argument against this overdue remedy seems to be
that it has nothing to do with race or color -- although population movements in
recent years clearly have included both black and white voters in large numbers.
Congress should not be precluded from doing anything in the legislation before
us simply because it has no racial or color ramifications. Voting rights are
voting rights and I have always believed we should be colorblind -- nondiscrininatory
if you will -- about them.
The President is the representative of all the prople and all the people should
have a reasonable opportunity to vote for him.
Perhaps the most significant change which my Nationwide Voting Rights Bill
would effect in comparison with the existing 1965 statute is found in the spirit
of it. Today, any State or county which is under the shadow of the 1964 formula
cannot malte any change in its election laws without coming to Washington for
permission. Under the 1965 act it is assumed that any such change is intended
to cheat the law and circumvent the Constitution.
-4-
The fundamental presumption of innocence is denied these six or seven States,
under an arbitrary, outmoded, mathematical formula. They are presumed guilty
and prevented -- though 43 other States are not so prevented -- from managing
their own electoral affairs until they prove themselves innocent in Federal
court -- not their own district courts but in the District of Columbia.
Maybe -- I do not concede it, but maybe -- past sins justified such severity
in past legislation. But this is not the Reconstruction Era and neither is
this 1965. Four eventful years have passed; evils and errors of another time
have yielded. Now, today, it is wrong and it is shameful for this House to
perpetuate a punitive and discriminatory provision for another 5 years beyond
the point where the original authors of the act intended it to expire.
My Nationwide Voting Rights Bill shifts the burden of proof back where it ought
to be -- to the Attorney General -- and empowers him to go after any State which
does, in fact, discriminate against voters on racial grounds or which might
backslide in the future. Just as we do not went any second class citizens in
this country, neither do we want any second class states.
My friends, the choices before us here are usually difficult choices.
I do not believe they are at all difficult today.
We have before us two proposals -- one to continue unchanged for five more years
a measure intended as strong temporary medicine to cure racial discrimination
in one part of the country. which in working a commendable and partial cure has
itself discriminated in unnecessary ways. The alternative is my Nationwide
Voting Rights Lill which builds upon the lessons of the 1965 Act, continues its
Federal oversight but climinated its serious shortcomings.
This Administration with this bill intends to protect all the gains in voting
rights protection which have been made in the past four years. More than that,
we intend to extend these gains to all states and all Americans who may still be
denied their full franchise. The very fact we have made such spectacular
gains rules out any notion of standing still, or of singling out a few scapegoat
States. We mean to step up and broaden the Federal concern for voting rights
anywhere and everywhere in America.
"***
[12/16+11/69
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Remarks of Rep. Gerald R. Ford (Michigan), House Republican Leader,
during general debate on the Voting Rights Act Extension.
Mr. Chairman, there are several points upon which I hope we can all agree as
we begin this debate.
First, we can surely agree with the statement of the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary that "Every American must have an equal right
to vote; no duty weighs upon the Congress more heavily than the duty to assure
that right."
The gentleman from New York's eloquence was echoed by my friend from Ohio who is
the ranking minority member on the committee, who said: "The elective franchise
is the cornerstone of our representative Republic."
We must agree with that, also.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to implement the guarantee of the
Constitution that no American's right to vote should be abridged because of his
race or color. At the time Congress took this action, it was apparent that the
right to vote of many Americans, mainly black Americans, was being abridged
on account of color; the remedy was compounded to fit the situation then pre-
vailing. A formula was devised, based upon the registration and voting pattern
of the 1964 presidential election. This formula was very carefully fashioned so
as to include certain Southern States and exclude others.
Leaping over all the debate of 4 years ago, it was generally accepted then by the
Congress that the unprecedented intervention of Federal authority, represented by
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, into the constitutional power of States to
determine the qualification of voters, would only be temporary. It was felt,
quite properly, that the extension of the right to vote would, in time, be self-
sustaining for those previously denied the franchise because of racial discrimina-
tion. Once they could vote they would, through the power of the ballot box, make
certain that they were never disenfranchised again -- this is the theory to which
most of us subscribe. Therefore, the key provisions of the 1965 Act were
supposed to become unnecessary and to expire in August, 1970 -- although there
would still be a probationary period under the law.
It is these key provisions, which single out six Southern States and portions of
several others, which the committee bill would have us continue unchanged for
another 5 years. We are told we must not even change the existing law so much as
to update its triggering formula from 1964 to the 1968 election statistics. Why
not?
The answer is incredible, but here it is: The 1964 formula should not be changed
because a 1968 formula would permit most, if not all, of those six or seven
Southern States to escape further discrimination from the Federal Government.
This is because they have now registered or now allow more than half their voting-
age citizens to vote -- because they have sucessfully passed the test Congress
set in 1965.
I am highly gratified that 300,000 -- perhaps as many as 1 million black Americans
in the seven specially covered States have been registered since the 89th Congress
passed the 1965 Voting Rights Act. I believe the 91st ongress should not stop
there but should go forward to protect and expand this fundamental right for all
citizens, whatever their race, creed, or color, whereever they reside.
But I believe there are other fundamental rights that are equally precious to
Americans -- the right of equal justice under law, which surely applies to the
50 States of the Union as well as to individuals -- the presumption of innocence
which puts the burden of proof on the accuser -- the principle that there is one
law in this land for black and for white, for rich and for poor, for Georgian and
for Californiam.
If it is agreed we have a duty to implement the voting rights guaranteed by the
15th amendment and elsewhere in the Constitution, if we agree that substantial
-2-
progress has been made under the 1965 Act but that much room for improvement
remains, and if we are honest enough to admit that the present law, for all its'
commendable results, is discriminatory in spirit and in practice against one
part of our country, then let us get on with a nationwide standard in the spirit
of 1970 rather than 1964.
To do this President Nixon and his Administration have propcsed, and I have
introduced -- with my distinguished colleagues -- H.R. 12695, the Nationvide
Voting Rights Bill which will be before us as a substitute for the Committee Bill.
Mr. Chairman, I have in my possession a letter dated December 10 from President
Nixon which I will not read at this point. I will insert it at this point in the
RECOND as a part of my remarks:
Hon. Gerald R. Ford
Minority Leader of the U. S. House of Representatives
Washington,m D. C.
Dear Jerry:
I am aware that the House is considering a five-year extension of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, and alternatively, as an amendment, the
Administration-proposed nationwide voting rights bill, H.R. 12695.
I strongly believe that the nationwide bill is superior because it is
more comprehensive and equitable. Therefore, I believe every effort must
be made to see that its essence, at least, prevails.
I would stress two critical points:
1. Instead of simply extending until 1975 the present Voting Rights
Act, which bans literacy tests in only seven states, as the Committee
bill would do, the nationwide bill would apply to all states until
January 1, 1974. It would extend protection to millions of citizens
not now covered and not covered under the Committee Bill.
2. H.R. 12695 assures that otherwide qualified voters would not be denied
the right to vote for President merely because they changed their state of
residence shortly before a national election.
In short, the nationwide bill would go a long way toward insuring a vote
for all our citizens in every state. Under it those millions who have
been voteless in the past and thus voiceless in our government would have
the legal tools they need to obtain and secure the franchise. Justice
requires no less.
For certainly an enlightened national legislature must admit that justice
is diminished for any citizen who does not have the right to vote for
those who govern him. There is no way for the disenfranchised to consider
themselves equal partners in our society.
This is true regardless of state or geographical location.
I urge that this message be brought to your colleagues, and I hope they
will join in our efforts to grant equal voting rights to all citizens of
the United States.
Sincerely,
RICHARD NIXON
Mr. Chairman, I am notivated not only by the idea of relieving the citizens and
authorities of a few States from unjust discrimination, but also by a firm con-
viction that the laws of the United States, which we write here, ought to be the
same for all 50 States; that the benefits of good laws should benefit citizens
everywhere; that the penalties for defiance or evasion should be the same
North, South, East and West; and that the right to vote may be -- and often is --
abridged in many ways and for many reasons in addition to race or color.
The right to vote for President and Vice President, and for other Federal
elective offices, is a nationwide right entitled to nationwide protection. Our
Nationwide Voting Rights Bill, to summarize it briefly, is nationwide in all of
its parts.
-3-
Specifically:
1. It would suspend, nationwide, all literacy tests in all 50 States until
January 1, 1974.
2. It would provide, nationwide, a uniform residence requirement for all
Americans who want to vote in Presidential elections.
3. It would grant, nationwide, statutory authority to the Attorney General to
station voting examiners and observers in any jurisdiction in all 50 States to
enforce the right to register and to vote.
4. It would provide, nationwide, statutory authority for the Attorney General
to start voting rights lawsuits in Federal Courts to prevent discriminatory
practices and suspend discriminatory voting laws in all 50 States
5. It would launch a nationvide study of the use of literacy tests or devices
and other corrupt practices which may abridge voting rights in all 50 States.
A national voting advisory commission would be created to report its findings
prior to the expiring of the nationwide literacy test suspension in 1974.
I cannot see anything among these five nationvide proposals to which any
reasonable person could disagree except, perhaps, the temporary ban on all
literacy tests for four years. Literacy tests are not wrong or unConstitutional
in themselves; what is illegal is their misuse to deny the right to vote not for
illiteracy but on account of race or color. Even the present Act does not
prohibit literacy tests in some 20 States that have them; it temporarily suspends
them in six or seven States under certain conditions.
Our Nationwide Voting Rights Bill says, in effect, if any State is to be
temporarily denied the right to have a literacy test of any kind, let's temporar-
ily deny this right to all States; let's see what effect this has on registration
of minority groups and upon voting patterns in all 50 States, and then let's
decide what to do about such tests and other devices for the nation as a whole.
What could be fairer ?
There is one provision of my Nationwide Voting Rights Bill which the proponents
of a simple 5-year extension do not, so far as I know, openly oppose; that is the
provision nationalizing residency requirements for Presidential elections. This
simply recognizes the fact of life in the super-highway and jet age; Americans
are the most mobile people in the world; more than 5 1/2 million of them were
prevented from voting in 1960 because they had recently moved. They thus lost
their vote in their place of previous residence too last to reacquire it in their
new home.
With all deference to my Vice President's reservations, the news media keep
transient Americans just as well (or just as badly) informed of national issues
and national candidates as they do voters who stay in one precinct all their
lives. It makes no sense to deny anyone his right to vote because his employer,
or his child's health, or whatever, transfers him abruptly to another part of
the United States. The main argument against this overdue remedy seems to be
that it has nothing to do with race or color -- although population movements in
recent years clearly have included both black and white voters in large numbers.
Congress should not be precluded from doing anything in the legislation before
us simply because it has no racial or color ramifications. Voting rights are
voting rights and I have always believed we should be colorblind -- nondiscrininator)
if you will -- about them.
The President is the representative of all the prople and all the people should
have a reasonable opportunity to vote for him.
Perhaps the most significant change which my Nationwide Voting Rights Bill
would effect in comparison with the existing 1965 statute is found in the spirit
of it. Today, any State or county which is under the shadow of the 1964 formula
cannot make any change in its election laws without coming to Washington for
permission. Under the 1965 act it is assumed that any such change is intended
to cheat the law and circumvent the Constitution.
-4-
The fundamental presumption of innocence is denied these six or seven States,
under an arbitrary, outmoded, mathematical formula. They are presumed guilty
and prevented -- though 43 other States are not so prevented -- from managing
their own electoral affairs until they prove themselves innocent in Federal
court -- not their own district courts but in the District of Columbia.
Maybe -- I do not concede it, but maybe -- past sins justified such severity
in past legislation. But this is not the Reconstruction Era and neither is
this 1965. Four eventful years have passed; evils and errors of another time
have yielded. Now, today, it is wrong and it is shameful for this House to
perpetuate a punitive and discriminatory provision for another 5 years beyond
the point where the original authors of the act intended it to expire.
My Nationwide Voting Rights Bill shifts the burden of proof back where it ought
to be -- to the Attorney General -- and empowers him to go after any State which
does, in fact, discriminate against voters on racial grounds or which might
backslide in the future. Just as we do not want any second class citizens in
this country, neither do we want any second class states.
My friends, the choices before us here are usually difficult choices.
I do not believe they are at all difficult today.
We have before us two proposals -- one to continue unchanged for five more years
a measure intended as strong temporary medicine to cure racial discrimination
in one part of the country. which in working a commondable and partial cure has
itself discriminated in unnecessary ways. The alternative is my Nationwide
Voting Rights Bill which builds upon the lessons of the 1965 Act, continues its
Federal oversight but eliminated its serious shortcomings.
This Administration with this bill intends to protect all the gains in voting
rights protection which have been made in the past four years. More than that,
we intend to extend these gains to all states and all Americans who may still be
denied their full franchise. The very fact we have made such spectacular
gains rules out any notion of standing still, or of singling out a few scapegoat
States. We mean to step up and broaden the Federal concern for voting rights
anywhere and everywhere in America.
"""