Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118567684",
    "label": "JGR/Campaign Finance Reform [re: Geraldine Ferraro] (1 of 2)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118567684"
}

{
    "id": "118567684",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118567684",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "JGR/Campaign Finance Reform [re: Geraldine Ferraro] (1 of 2)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118567684",
    "identifierLocal": "485",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)",
        "John Roberts' Subject Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-007-001-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-007-001-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-007-001-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118567684",
    "naId": 118567684,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1986-12-31",
        "year": 1986
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1982-01-01",
        "year": 1982
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/6908381/40-485-6908381-007-001-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "cd8c340459ac2463",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Roberts, John G.: Files\nFolder Title: JGR/Campaign Finance Reform\n[re: Geraldine Ferraro] (1 of 2)\nBox: 7\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nCAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM\nHEARINGS\nHELD BEFORE THE\nTASK FORCE ON ELECTIONS\nOF THE\nCOMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION\nU.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nNINETY-EIGHTH CONGRESS\nFIRST SESSION\nJUNE 9, 16, 21, 23, 1983, WASHINGTON, D.C.\nJULY 8, 1983, BOSTON, MASS.\nAUGUST 22, 1983, SACRAMENTO, CALIF.\nAUGUST 23, 1983, SEATTLE, WASH.\nOCTOBER 12, 1983, ATLANTA, GA.\nPrinted for the use of the Committee on House Administration\nU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE\n25-648 0\nWASHINGTON : 1984\nH421-1\nCOMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION\nNINETY-EIGHTH CONGRESS\nAUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, California, Chairman\nFRANK ANNUNZIO, Illinois\nBILL FRENZEL, Minnesota\nJOSEPH M. GAYDOS, Pennsylvania\nWILLIAM L. DICKINSON, Alabama\nED JONES, Tennessee\nROBERT E. BADHAM, California\nJOSEPH G. MINISH, New Jersey\nNEWT GINGRICH, Georgia\nCHARLES ROSE, North Carolina\nWILLIAM M. THOMAS, California\nLEON E. PANETTA, California (On leave)\nROD CHANDLER, Washington 1\nAL SWIFT, Washington\nBARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada\nWILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania\nPAT ROBERTS, Kansas 2\nTHOMAS S. FOLEY, Washington\nMARY ROSE OAKAR, Ohio\nTONY COELHO, California\nJIM BATES, California\nHUGH G. DUFFY, Chief of Staff\nCHARLES T. HOWELL, Chief Counsel\nLINDA G. NAVE, Minority Staff Director\nTASK FORCE ON ELECTIONS\nAL SWIFT, Washington, Chairman\nWILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania\nWILLIAM M. THOMAS, California\nMARY ROSE OAKAR, Ohio\nBARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada\nTONY COELHO, California\nBILL FRENZEL, Minnesota\nJIM BATES, California\nKARL J. SANDSTROM, Deputy Counsel\nKATHRYN ERICKSON JARVIS, Legislative Assistant\n1 Resigned from committee, July 29, 1983.\n2 Appointed to committee, August 20, 1983.\n(II)\nCONTENTS\nPage\nHearing of June 9, 1983: Testimony of Congress\n1\nTESTIMONY\nBrown, Hon. George E. Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nCalifornia\n84\nCourter, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of New\nJersey\n103\nDymally, Hon. Mervyn M., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nCalifornia\n118\nGlickman, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arkan-\nsas\n53\nLeach, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa\n51\nLungren, Hon. Daniel E., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nCalifornia\n109\nObey, Hon. David R., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wiscon-\nsin\n46\nRinaldo, Hon. Matthew J., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nNew Jersey\n55\nUdall, Hon. Morris, K., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nArizona\n59\nVento, Hon. Bruce F., a Representative in Congress from the State of Minne-\nsota\n129\nWise, Hon. Robert E. Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of West\nVirginia\n127\nSTATEMENTS\nAnthony, Hon. Beryl, Jr., a Repre ntative in Congress from the State of\nArkansas\n139\nBrown, Hon. George E. Jr., a Repres *ative in Congress from the State of\nCalifornia\n86\nCourter, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of New\nJersey\n105\nDymally, Hon. Mervyn M., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nCalifornia\n122\nLungren, Hon. Daniel E., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nCalifornia\n113\nFascell, Hon. Dante B., a Representative in Congress from the State of Flor-\nida\n142\nLaFalce, Hon. John J., a Representative in Congress from the State of New\nYork\n137\nRinaldo, Hon. Matthew J., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nNew Jersey\n58\nSynar, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma\n140\nUdall Hon. Morris K., a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizo-\nna\n62\nVento, Hon. Bruce F., a Representative in Congress from the State of Minne-\nsota\n131\nWise, Hon. Mervyn M., a Representative in Congress from the State of West\nVirginia\n128\n(111)\nIV\nARTICLES (FROM THE)\nPage\nAtlant Constitution, Atlanta, Ga., May 12, 1981\n32\nBillings Gazette, Billings, Mont., September 2, 1982\n11\nBlade, Toledo, Ohio, November 11, 1982\n6\nBlade, Toledo, Ohio, November 8, 1982\n8\nBuffalo Evening News, Buffalo, N.Y., November 6, 1982\n3\nCincinnati Post, Times-Star, Cincinnati, Ohio, July 5, 1982\n9\nCommercial Appeal, Memphis, Tenn., August 1, 1982\n9\nDemocrat Chronicle, Rochester, N.Y. May 21, 1981\n31\nDeseret News, Salt Lake City, Utah, November 4-5, 1982\n3\nDes Moines Register, Des Moines, Iowa, November 5, 1982\n6\nDispatch, Columbus, Ohio, November 5, 1982\n4\nKansas City Star, Kansas City, Mo., May 18, 1981\n31\nNews and Courier/Charleston Evening Post, Charleston, S.C., October 23,\n1982\n12\nNewsday, Long Island, N.Y., November 5, 1982\n4\nPortland Press Herald, Portland, Ore., June 5, 1981\n30\nPost-Tribune, Gary, Ind., October 30, 1982\n12\nRockford Register Star, Rockford, Ill., August 3, 1982\n10\nReckford Register Star, Rockford, Ill., November 8, 1982\n6\nSacramento Bee, Sacramento, Calif., May 9, 1981\n31\nSan Jose News, San Jose, Calif., May 3, 1981\n33\nStar Ledger, Newark, N.J.. November 7, 1932\n2\nSt. Louis Post-Dispatch, St. Louis, Mo., October 19, 1982\n11\nTennessean, Nashville, Tenn., November 5, 1982\n5\nTulsa World, Tulsa, Okla., November 5, 1982\n7\nVirginian-Pilot, Norfolk, Va., August 16, 1982\n8\nEDITORIALS\n\"A Disturbing Trend,\" Fort Worth Star-Telegraph, Fort Worth, Tex, January\n11, 1982\n17\n\"A Matter of Political Integrity,\" the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia,\nPa., January 22, 1982\n18\n\"A No-Decision Decision,\" the Plain Dealer, Cleveland, Ohio, January 25,\n1982\n19\n\"Be Sure To Check the $1 Box,\" the Chattanooga Times, Chattanooga, Tenn.,\nMarch 31, 1983\n41\n\"Buying Into Congress,\" the Kansas City Times, Kansas City, Mo., June 23,\n1982\n23\n\"Concentrated Political Clout,\" the Des Moines Register, Des Moines, Iowa,\nMarch 7, 1982\n21\n\"Congress Should Not Be for Sale,\" the Wichita Eagle-Beacon, Wichita,\nKans., April 17, 1983\n36\n\"Does Money Talk in Congress?,\" St. Louis Post-Dispatch, St. Louis, Mo.,\nOctober 10, 1981\n16\n\"For Sale: Congress,\" the Des Moines Register, Des Moines, Iowa, April 14,\n1983\n15\n\"Imperfect Anti-PAC Bill,\" the Des Moines Register, Des Moines, Iowa, Sep-\ntember 1', 1981\n38\n\"Independent Spending in Presidential Races Must Be Curbed,\" the Courier-\nJournal, Louisville, Ky., December 11, 1981\n16\n\"Making PAC's Accountable,\" St. Louis Post-Dispatch, St. Louis, Mo., July 31,\n1982\n24\n\"Mom and Pop\" PAC's?,\" St. Petersburg Times, St. Petersburg, Fla., January\n15, 1983\n37\n\" 'Money in Politics' We Must Keep Demanding Limitations,\" the Courier-\nJournal, Louisville, Ky., January 11, 1980\n13\n\"Money's Held on Politics,\" the Times-Picayune, the States-Item, New Or-\nleans, La., March 9, 1982\n22\n\"Money Talks,\" Oregon Journal, Portland, Ore., January 22, 1982\n18\n\"Money Talks Too Much,\" the Sacramento Bee, Sacramento, Calif., November\n10, 1982\n25\n\"No Secrecy for PAC's,\" the Cincinnati Post, Cincinnati, Ohio, March 23, 1982\n43\n\"None of the Above,\" the New York Times, New York, N.Y., March 13, 1980\n34\n\"Pacesetters on PAC?,\" the Hartford Courant, Hartford, Conn., February 19,\n1983\n28\nV\nPage\n\"PAC-MAN\", the Richmond News Leader, Richmond, Va., March 22, 1983\n43\n\"PAC Man Politics,\" the Detroit News, Detroit Mich., February 15, 1983\n26\n\"PAC-MEN: We Need To Curb the Inordinate Power of Political Action\nCommittees,\" Detroit Free Press, Detroit, Mich., May 28, 1982\n23\n\"PAC's Pack Potent Punch,\" Lincoln Journal, Lincoln, Nebr., August 18,\n1981\n14\n\"PAC's Stall & Reform,\" St. Petersburg Times, St. Peterburg, Fla., February\n3, 1982\n20\n\"Political Piper Must Be Paid,\" the Oregonian, Portland, Ore., April 25, 1983\n35\n\"Public Funding Would Improve the Campaigns,\" the Daily Herald, Biloxi,\nMich., April 13, 1983\n39\n\"Reform: PAC Political Influence Unbalances the System\", Syracuse Herald-\nJournal, Syracuse, N.Y., February 16, 1983\n27\n\"Running in PAC's,\" the Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis Ind., March 13, 1983\n30\n\"Soaring Campaign Cost,\" the Cincinnati Post, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 8, 1983\n40\n\"Special-Interest Giving,\" the Des Moines Register, Des Moines, Iowa, October\n25, 1982\n25\n\"Tax-Return Checkoff Aids Free Elections.\" Buffalo Evening News, Buffalo,\nN.Y., March 24, 1983\n43\n\"The Campaign Spending Laws are in Trouble,\" Newsday, Long Island, N.Y.,\nJanuary 26, 1982\n19\n\"The High Cost Of Running,\" the San Diego Union, San Diego, Calif., Novem-\nber 7, 1982\n33\n\"The People's Elections,\" the Denver Post, Denver Colo., March 27, 1983\n42\n\"There's a Better Way,\" the Kansas City Star, Kansas City, Mo., April 13,\n1983\n39\n\"Two Ways To Pay,\" St. Petersburg Times, St. Peterburg, Fla., August 24,\n1981\n14\n\"Unleashing the Big Spenders,\" The Sacramento Bee, Sacramento, Calif.,\nFebruary 4, 1982\n21\n\"Up, Up and Away,\" Maine Sunday Telegram, Portland, Maine, March 6,\n1983\n29\n\"Warning Flags Are Waving on Growing PAC Influence,\" the Tennessean,\nNashville, Tenn., February 27, 1983\n28\n\"Who Are To Be Electors of Federal Representatives?,\" the Philadelphia\nInquirer, Philadelphia, Pa., April 18, 1983\n36\n\"Yes to Checkoff,\" Wisconsin State Journal Madison, Wis., April 5, 1983\n40\n\"$1 for Clean Elections,\" St. Petersburg Times, St. Petersburg, Fla., March 27,\n1983\n41\nILLUSTRATIONS\nA-If you're invited to George Brown's home\n91\nB-Don't vote without knowing the 8 reasons why\n94\nC-John Paul Stark for Congress 1982\n97\nD-The liberal, George Brown\n99\nE-Compare your positions with those of George Brown\n101\nHearing of June 16, 1983: Testimony of Congress\n145\nTESTIMONY\nConable, Hon. Barber B., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nNew York\n193\nFerraro, Hon. Geraldine A., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nNew York\n203\nJacobs, Hon. Andrew, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nIndiana\n219\nKostmayer, Hon. Poter H., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nPennsylvania\n224\nLevine, Hon. Mel, a Representative in Congress from the State of California\n229\nMcHugh, Hon. Matthew F., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nNew York\n187\nVander Jagt, Hon. Guy, a Representative in Congress from the State of\nMichigan\n168\nVI\nSTATEMENTS\nPage\nCampbell, Hon. Carroll A., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nSouth Carolina\n221\nFerraro. Hon. Geraldine A., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nNew York\n217\nHamilton, Hon. Lee H., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nIndiana\n236\nKostmayer, Hon. Peter H., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nPennsylvania\n227\nLevine, Hon. Mel, a Representative in Congress from the State of California\n234\nMcHugh, Hon. Matthew F., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nNew York\n190\nVander Jagt, Hon. Guy, a Representative in Congress from the State of\nMichigan\n186\nWolpe, Hon. Howard, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michi-\ngan\n235\nARTICLES\nHow the Electoral Process Should Work, the Public's Script\n161\nSummary of Republican Party Activity in the 1982 Election\n152\nThe Political Tax Credit Reform Act of 1983\n192\nNATIONAL SURVEYS\n\"Americans Call Heavy Campaign Spending a 'Serious Problem',\" by Louis\nHarris, the Harris survey, Jan. 3, 1983\n152\n\"Americans Vote 'Yes' for Electoral Reform,\" the Gallup report, No. 209,\nFebruary 1983\n158\nAttitudes Toward Campaign Financing, a CSI survey report\n146\n\"Public Fed Up With Political TV Ads,\" by Louis Harris, the Harris survey,\nJanuary 6, 1983\n155\n\"Public Financing of Federal Elections Opposed by Most Americans,\" by\nLouis Harris, the Harris survey, January 10, 1983\n165\nVoter Distrust of PAC's Is Growing, by Louis Harris, the Harris survey, May\n23, 1983\n156\nTABULAR\nChanges in political campaigns sought by the public, 1972-82\n164\nChanging political campaigns\n162\nFavor Federal elections financed out of public funds\n166\nFederal funding of Congressional campaigns\n164\nFunding sources of House and Senate Candidates in general elections: 1974-\n82\n152\nLarge campaign contributions yield too much influence over Government\n154\nPolitical campaigns dominated by paid advertising\n156\nStatements about money and politics\n167\nSummary of Republican party activity in the 1982 election\n152\nTrust in PAC's that give money to a Presidential candidate\n157\nTV commercials in election campaigns\n156\nVarious campaign contributions good or bad influence\n154\nHearing of June 21, 1983: Examining the roll of our political parties in\ncongressional elections\n239\nTESTIMONY\nAdams, Don W., chairman, State Republican Party of Illinois\n303\nAdamany, Dr. David, president, Wayne State University\n240\nAllen, William H., chairman, Section of Administrative Law, American Bar\nAssociation; accompanied by Jan Baran, chairman, Commission on Election\nLaw; and Michael S. Berman, Commission on Election Law\n323\nBraden, E. Mark, chief counsel, Republican National Committee\n289\nMalbin, Dr. Michael, J., American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy\nResearch\n252\nVII\nPage\nManatt, Charles T., chairman, Democratic National Committee, accompanied\nby Anthony Harrington, general counsel, Democratic National Committee\n275\nNagle, David, chairman, State Democratic Party of Iowa\n298\nScammon. Dr. Richard, director, Elections Research Center\n262\nWiener, Richard, chairman, State Democratic Party of Michigan\n308\nSTATEMENTS\nAdamany, Dr. David, president, Wayne State University\n244\nAdams, Don W., chairman, State Republican Party of Illinois\n306\nAllen, William H., chairman, Section of Administrative Law, American Bar\nAssociation\n320\nFahrenkopf, Frank, J., Jr., chairman, Republican National Committee\n292\nMalbin, Dr. Michael J., American Enterprise Institute for Public Research\n255\nManatt, Charles T., chairman, Democratic National Committee\n279\nNagle, David, chairman, State Democratic Party of Iowa\n300\nWiener, Richard, chairman, State Democratic Party of Michigan\n309\nARTICLES\nManatt tells House Committee of Republican \"Dirty Tricks\", Democratic\nNews, Democratic National Committee, June 21, 1983\n283\nReport on \"Reform of the FEC's Enforcement Procedures\", Committee on\nElection Law, Section of Administrative Law, American Bar Association\n324\nResolution of the Section of Administrative Law, American Bar Association\n324\n\"Summary of Existing Enforcement Procedure\", Commission on Election\nLaw, Section of Administrative Law, American Bar Association\n332\n\"The Problem of PAC Journalism\", Public Opinion, Vol. 5, No. 6, January\n1983, by Michael Malbin\n259\n\"Title 2-The Congress\", Commission on Election Law, Section of Administra-\ntive Law, American Bar Association\n333\nTABULAR\nFinancial statement, Iowa State Democratic Party, 1980\n301\nFinancial statement, Iowa State Democratic Party, 1981\n302\nFinancial statement, Iowa State Democratic Party, 1982\n303\nFunding sources for general election candidates\n257\nFunding sources for general election candidates in House and Senate elec-\ntions, by party and candidate status, 1982\n258\nHearing of June 23, 1983: Fundraising and the cost of campaigning\n341\nTESTIMONY\nAldige, James G., III, executive vice president, the Viguerie Co\n411\nBoxer, Hon. Barbara, a Representative in Congress from the State of Califor-\nnia\n439\nCaddell, Patrick, H., president, Cambridge Survey Research\n368\nCraver, Roger, M., president, Craver, Mathews, Smith & Co\n407\nGriffith, Elisabeth (Betsy), cochair, Women's Campaign Fund\n450\nLaxalt, Hon. Paul, a Senator in Congress from the State of Nevada, and\nchairman, Republican National Committee\n387\nLevin, Hon. Sander M., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nMichigan\n441\nMahe, Eddie, Jr., president, Precision Targeting, Inc\n380\nMorrison, Hon. Bruce A., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nConnecticut\n437\nSquier, Robert D., president, Communication Co\n354\nWhite, F. Clifton, political consultant\n358\nSTATEMENTS\nAldige, James G., III, executive vice president, the Viguerie Co\n418\nCaddell, Patrick, H., president, Cambridge Survey Research\n374\nCraver, Roger, M., president, Craver, Mathews, Smith & Co\n408\nGriffith, Elisabeth (Betsy), cochair, Women's Campaign Fund\n454\nVIII\nPage\nLaxalt, Hon. Paul, a Senator in Congress from the State of Nevada, and\nchairman, Republican National Committee\n398\nLevin, Sander M., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan\n443\nMahe, Eddie, Jr., president, Precision Targeting, Inc\n384\nSquier, Robert D., president, Communications Co\n356\nSwift, Hon. Al, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington\n(opening statement)\n341\nWhite, F. Clifton, political consultant\n360\nARTICLES\n\"Direct Mail in the Political Process\", Fund Raising Management, March\n1980, Vol. 11, No. 1, by James G. Aldige III\n428\nEqualizing Candidates' Opportunities for Expression\n462\nPolitical Advertising on Television Totals Record $117 Million in 1982\n353\nPolitical Mail Will Raise Money for Image Makers\n422\n\"Political Television Spending Hits $117 Million\", the Campaign Journal,\nApril 4, 1983\n353\n\"Supplement Your Fund Raising with a Direct Mail Campaign\", by James G.\nAldige III, Association Management, Vol. 35, No. 6, June 1983\n420\n\"1982 Political Advertising On Television Totals Record $117 Million\", Televi-\nsion Bureau of Advertising, Inc., TvB, Rpt. No. 83-14, March 3, 1983\n353\nCost of Congressional Elections, 1972-82\n342\nCHARTS\n1. Total campaign expenditures in House and Senate elections, 1972-82\n341\n2. Total campaign expenditures in House and Senate elections (in constant\n1972 dollars)\n346\n3. Average House campaign expenditures by candidate status, 1972-82\n348\n4. Average House campaign expenditures by candidate status (in constant\n1972 dollars)\n349\n5. Average Senate campaign expenditures by candidate status, 1972-82\n351\n6. Average Senate campaign expenditures by candidate status (in constant\n1972 dollars)\n352\nTABULAR\n1. Total campaign expenditures in House and Senate elections-1972-82\n343\n2. Total campaign expenditures in House and Senate elections-1972-82, in\nconstart 1972 dollars\n345\n3. Average House and Senate campaign expenditures by candidate status-\n1972-82\n347\n4. Average House and Senate campaign expenditures by candidate status, in\nconstant 1972 dollars\n350\n5. Candidates' gender and campaign financing, 1981-82\n457\n6. Political ad dollars on TV\n353\nHearing of July 8, 1983: \"Campaign Finance Reform,\" Boston, Mass\n483\nTESTIMONY\nAlexander, Hon. Lawrence R., State representative, Commonwealth of Massa-\nchusetts\n583\nBerry, Jeffrey M., associate professor of political science, Tufts University\n556\nBusinger, Hon. John W., State representative, Commonwealth of Massachu-\nsetts\n586\nChervinsky, Jerry, political director, WBZ-TV\n548\nClaybrook, Joan, president of Public Citizen\n529\nCox, Archibald, chairman, Common Cause, accompanied by Anne McBryant,\nvice president\n495\nJohnson, Jim, assistant news director, WNEV-TV\n548\nKlein, Jon, director, election law project, Massachusetts Public Interest Re-\nsearch Group\n596\nLevendusky, Greg, executive director, Massachusetts chapter, Americans for\nDemocratic Action\n594\nMason, John H., partner, Ropes & Gray, member, council of legal advisors to\nthe Republican National Committee\n514\nIX\nPage\nMileur, Jerome M., executive director, Committee for Party Renewal, and\nprofessor of political science, University of Massachusetts-Amherst\n552\nMoore, Roger Allan, general counsel, Republican National Committee\n510\nPaul, John H., director, Government affairs, AMAX, Inc\n574\nRoche, Stephen G., director of legislation, office of the secretary of state,\nCommonwealth of Massachusetts\n564\nShannon, Hon. James M., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nMassachucetts\n485\nShibley, Richard, chairman, Electoral Reform Task Force, Citizens for Partici-\npation in Political Action (CPPAX)\n592\nWillis, Bruce D., general counsel, Independent-Republican Party of Minneso-\nta\n517\nSTATEMENTS\nAlexander, Hon. Lawrence R., State representative, Commonwealth of Massa-\nchusetts\n585\nBerry, Prof. Jeffrey M., Department of Political Science, Tufts University\n561\nBusinger, Hon. John W., State representative, Commonwealth of Massachu-\nsetts\n590\nClaybrook, Joan, president for Public Citizen\n538\nCox, Archibald, chairman, Common Cause\n504\nKlein, Jon, director, election law project, Massachusetts Public Interest Re-\nsearch Group\n596\nLevendusky, Greg, executive director, Massachusetts chapter, Americans for\nDemocratic Action\n595\nManning, Frank J., president, Massachusetts Association of Older Americans,\nInc\n601\nMason, John H., partner, Ropes & Gray, member, council of legal advisors to\nthe Republican National Committee\n516\nMileur, Jerome M., executive director, Committee for Party Renewal, and\nprofessor of political science, University of Massachusetts-Amherst\n554\nMoore, Roger Allan, general counsel, Republican National Committee\n512\nPaul, John H., director, Government affairs, AMAX, Inc\n580\nRoche, Stephen G., director of legislation, office of the secretary of state,\nCommonwealth of Massachusetts\n570\nShannon, Hon. James M., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nMassachusetts\n493\nWillis, Bruce D., general counsel, Independent-Republican Party of Minneso-\nta\n521\nMISCELLANEOUS\n\"Connolly Says Media Should Help Get Out the Vote\"\n571\n\"Connolly and California State Secretary To File Proposal Election Day Legis-\nlation'\n572\n\"Connolly to Address National Media Executives in New York City\"\n572\nAn Act Regulating Activities in the Vicinity of Polling Places\n573\nTABULAR\n1. Correlation between how a Congressman voted on the used-car rule and the\namount of money he received from NADA, 1979-81\n544\n2. Congressman voting to kill used-car rule received 10 times as much money\nfrom car dealers as those voting to save the rule\n544\n3. Campaign contributions from AMA and ADA to each Senator during his\nmost recent election campaign\n544\n4. Corporate contributions to Ways and Means Committee members, 1980\nelection\n546\nHearing of August 22, 1983, \"Campaign Finance Reform,\" Sacramento, Calif\n603\nTESTIMONY\nAlexander, Dr. Herbert E., professor of political science, University of South-\nern California, and director, Citizens' Research Foundation\n652\nAngelo, Ernest, Jr., national committeeman, Texas State Republican Party\n623\nBell, Charles H., Jr., counsel, California State Republican Party\n618\nX\nPage\nElmendorf, Dr. Thomas, M.D., chairman, California Medical Political Action\nCommittee [CAL/PAC]\n693\nEpstein, Dr. Edwin, professor, University of California, Berkeley, Calif\n647\nFiman, Jack, execut. re vice president, Zimmerman, Galanty Fiman, Inc.,\nPolitical Consulting and Communications\n680\nJacobson, Gary C., professor of political science, University of California, San\nDiego, La Jolla, Calif\n640\nKeehner, Malcom N., California Association Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning\nContractors National Association [CALSMACNA]\n703\nLong, Shirley Commons, realtor, political affair. division, National Associ-\nation of Realtors\n690\nMcCarthy, Hon. Leo T., Lieutenant Governor, State of California\n606\nMiller, James, Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc\n697\nRosenfield. Harvey, staff attorney, California Public Interest Research Group\n673\nStark, John Paul, San Bernardino, Calif\n714\nVasconcellos, John, assemblyman, San Jose, Silicon Valley, Calif\n722\nSTATEMENTS\nAlexander, Dr. Herbert E., professor of political science, University of South-\nern California, and director, Citizens' Research Foundation\n655\nAngelo, Ernest, Jr., national committeeman, Texas State Republican Party\n624\nBell, Charles H., Jr., counsel, California Republican Party\n621\nElmendorf, Dr. Thomas, M.D., chairman, California Medical Political Action\nCommittee [CAL/PAC]\n695\nFiman, Jack, executive vice president, Zimmerman, Galanty Fiman, Inc.,\nPolitical Consulting and Communications\n683\nJacobson, Gary C., professor of political science, University of California, San\nDiego, La Jolla, Calif\n642\nKeehner, Malcom N., California Association Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning\nContractors National Association [CALSMACNA]\n704\nLong, Shirley Commons, realtor, political affairs division, National Associ-\nation ot Realtors\n692\nMcCarthy, Hon. Leo T., Lieutenant Governor, State of California\n608\nMatsui, Hon. Robert T., a Representative in Congress from the State of\nCalifornia\n604\nMiller, James, Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc\n700\nRosenfield, Harvey, staff attorney, California Pubic Interest Research Group\n676\nStark, John Paul, San Bernardino, Calif.\n715\nARTICLES\nCalPIRG attacks PAC's at congressional hearing, suggests new reforms\n676\nCampaign reform legislation, California State Assembly\n721\nReport of the Committee to Study Election Reform\n626\nTABULAR\nCongressional campaign expenditures, 1972-82\n656\nSources of campaign contributions to major party House and Senate general\nelection candidates, 1972-80\n643\nStatistical pattern for the 1980 house elections\n644\nThe change in congressional campaign contributions, 1974-82\n643\nHearing of August 23, 1983, \"Campaign Finance Reform\", Seattle, Wash\n729\nTESTIMONY\nAddison, Hon. Bruce, State Representative, Washington State Republican\nParty\n748\nBartlett, Bruce L., president, Roberge Sheet Metal, Inc., Seattle, Wash\n755\nCole, Eunice R., R.N., president, American Nurses' Association, Inc., Seattle,\nWash\n732\nHoman, Anne, representative government chair, League of Women Voters of\nWashington\n779\nMulligan, Dr. William P., M.D., chairman, Washington State Medical Associ-\nation, Medical Political Action Committee\n76¿\nXI\nPage\nPage, David B., Page & Associates, Inc., realtor, National Association of\nRealtors\n761\nSTATEMENTS\nAddison, Hon. Bruce, State Representative, Washington State Republican\nParty\n751\nBartlett, Bruce L., president, Roberge Sheet Metal, Inc., Seattle, Wash\n759\nCole, Eunice R., R.N., president, American Nurses' Association, Inc., Seattle,\nWash\n735\nDouglas, Roger, president, governing board of directors, Common Cause,\nWashington State\n790\nHoman, Anne, representative government chair, League of Women Voters of\nWashington\n780\nMulligan, Dr. William P., M.D., chairman, Washington State Medical Associ-\nation, Medical Political Action Committee\n768\nPage, David B., Page & Associates, Inc., realtor, National Association of\nRealtors\n764\nARTICLES\nSelected Campaign Finance Information on 1982 House races\n731\nLETTERS OF COMMUNICATION\nChapman, Gordon K., Secretary of Treasury, First Investor Bankpac of Wash-\nington\n793\nPage, David B., C.R.S., C.R.A., director, National Association of Realors\n765\nHearing of October 12, 1983: \"Campaign Finance Reform,\" Atlanta, Ga\n795\nTESTIMONY\nBlackburn, Hon. Ben B., president, Southeastern Legal Foundation\n796\nFowler, Conrad M., director, public affairs, Westpoint Pepperell\n820\nHuffman, Billy, Independent Insurance Agents of Georgia\n823\nLarsen, Wendell W., senior vice president, corporate affairs, IC Industries, Inc\n813\nMeader, Glenn S., Jr., assistant vice president/government relations, Conti-\nnental Telecom Inc\n828\nSettles, Thomas E., treasurer, Tennessee Republican Party\n806\nSTATEMENTS\nBlackburn, Hon. Ben B., president, Southeastern Legal Foundation\n799\nFowler, Conrad M., director, public affairs, Westpoint Pepperell\n822\nIndependent Insurance Agents of America, Inc\n825\nKau, James B., professor, University of Georgia\n811\nLarsen, Wendell W., senior vice president, corporate affairs, IC Industries, Inc\n815\nMeader, Glenn S., Jr., assistant vice president/government relations, Conti-\nnental Telecom Inc\n830\n203\nMr. FRENZEL. Well, I think you have got some flawed logic here,\ntoo. You have assumed that all my money comes from tax\ncredit\nMr. CONABLE. No, no.\nMr. FRENZEL [continuing]. Contributions.\nMr. CONABLE. No, no.\nMr. MCHUGH. No; the bill requires that you keep records of\ncredit-eligible contributions, that is, contributions up to $50.\nMr. FRENZEL. Then you assume that people take the credit.\nEvery individual contribution up to 100 bucks is credit eligible, but\nmany of the people that contribute to my campaign are not taking\nthat credit. They are short form filers.\nMr. CONABLE. I think your electorate-I think you're selling your\nelectorate short. As a member of the tax-writing committee, you\nought to understand that most people take a credit they're entitled\nto.\nMr. FRENZEL. I agree with that, but remember-\nMr. MCHUGH. Especially Republicans.\nMr. FRENZEL [continuing]. The people who contribute to me have\nalso contributed to Bill Thomas or to you, and they have used up\ntheir tax credit, and you may be taking their money back from\nthem that they didn't give to you.\nMr. CONABLE. Well, we're limiting that, the number of contribu-\ntions they will make to Bill Thomas and to me, too, if we put the\nState limit [laughter].\nMr. FRENZEL. Anyway, it's an interesting question, and we could\ntalk about it. I think with respect to State and local candidates, I\nthink that's a good move. And I think some of the other features—\nobviously, the newsletter cannot, we don't need. It's a thought-pro-\nvoking idea and I am really glad you brought it forward.\nMr. MCHUGH. Thank you.\nMr. SWIFT. Mrs. Vucanovich?\nMrs. VUCANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have SO many of\nthe same concerns that my colleague, Mr. Frenzel, has, and I won't\npursue the subject any further. He asked all the questions I would\nhave asked. Thank you.\nMr. SWIFT. Thank you, Mrs. Vucanovich. Thank both of you\nvery, very much for the time that you have taken to enlighten the\ncommittee.\nThe Chair would like to announce the procedure. We are going to\nhear three more witnesses before breaking for lunch, and they will\nbe, in order, Ms. Ferraro, Mr. Jacobs, and Mr. Campbell. Then we\nwill break for lunch and return later this afternoon to hear the\nfinal three witnesses.\nAt this point, the Chair recognizes Ms. Ferraro. Your full state-\nment will be included in the record, and you may proceed as you\nchoose.\nTESTIMONY OF HON. GERALDINE A. FERRARO, A REPRESENTA-\nTIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK\nMs. FERRARO. Mr. Chairman, my statement is rather short, so I\nwould appreciate if 1 could read it into the record, and then I\nwould be happy to answer any questions that you might have.\n204\nI do appreciate the opportunity to appear today and to testify\nwith reference to the need for campaign finance reform for con-\ngressional elections.\nI come before the committee as a cosponsor of the Clean Cam-\npaign Act, H.R. 2490, but rather than discuss the specifics of the\nlegislation on which this committee has already heard testimony, I\nwant to instead focus on some general concerns that cause me to\nsupport campaign finance reform.\nThere is little doubt that the key element in politics today is\nmoney. Money is more important in politics than ever before. More\ntime and energy and thought is given to raising money than ever\nbefore, and campaigns are more expensive than ever before.\nAll the money being poured into political campaigns by various\ninterest groups has created the concern that votes are being bought\nand sold in a kind of ever-rising auction of public policy.\nNotwithstanding jokes about an honest politician being a politi-\ncian who, once bought, stays bought, there are some very serious\nquestions here. Basically, is public policy being made on the basis\nof information found in FEC reports, or is public policy being made\non the basis of information in House and Senate committee re-\nports?\nThe standard answer to this question by those who defend the\ncurrent campaign finance methods is that except in the rarest of\ncases what is being purchased is access and not votes.\nNow, let me state clearly my confidence that the overwhelming\nmajority of members of Congress have the integrity we demand of\nour public servants and are not selling votes.\nThe problem, though, is that even if there isn't outright bribery\nand corruption going on, the role of big campaign money distorts\nthe political process and the legislative process. It just gets to the\npoint where the need to raise money dictates the activities on a\ndaily basis of Members of Congress.\nIt takes our time, it influences who we see, what information we\nget, and it takes away from our efforts on more substantive busi-\nness.\nThere are a few points I particularly want to make. First, there\nis a question of how much time Members put into raising money.\nI have been in Congress for almost 5 years now. I understand\nfrom some senior Members of Congress that there was a time when\nfundraising was not a year-round affair, when a member could con-\ncentrate on legislation until a month or two before the election,\nand only then turn to raising money.\nAll I can say is those were the days. Fundraising now for most\nmembers is a year-round activity, all year. every year, even-num-\nbered years, odd-numbered years. It is not at all uncommon for\nHouse members to start thinking about raising money for the next\nelection before they are even sworn in after winning the last elec-\ntion.\nOne measure of the importance of fundraising is the frequency of\nfundraisers. A standard feature of every day's schedule-and we all\nhave them on our cards for most us-is attending receptions for\nother members. You are expected to go help your friends, and you\nexpect them to show up to make your party a success.\n205\nMore than the receptions for other members, though, is the prob-\nlem that we all spend time raising money for our own campaigns.\nFundraising parties, one in Washington and one in the District, are\nannual events. Putting together lists of invitee, lining up big name\nsponsors, making arrangements for a room and refreshments-all\nthese things gobble up huge amounts of members' time and staffs'\ntime as well.\nPersonally, I have to tell you that there is no part of this job that\nI enjoy less or I find more distasteful than asking people for\nmoney. And make no mistake, we all know that it is a big part of\nthis job.\nThe important thing to realize about how fundraising distorts\nthe work we are here to do is that even if no campaign contribu-\ntion ever affects even one vote by even one Member, the need to\nspend time figuring out to raise money detracts from Members'\nability to focus on issues.\nAnd, as you all know, we are talking about big money. The\namounts of money over the past several years that have been con-\ntributed to various campaigns has actually tripled. Last year in the\nHouse and Senate campaigns, it was an average of 324,000, up from\n111,000 in 1976, which again is triple the earlier amount.\nIn fact, the average spending on House races in 1982 equaled the\naverage spending totals for House and Senate races combined in\n1980, and the average Senate candidate in 1982 spent over $1.7 mil-\nlion.\nThis trend shows no sign of slowing or reversing. Candidates reg-\nularly talk about building up war chests for future campaigns, and\nthese war chests are multipurpose.\nA recent New York Times report quoted one Senator as saying,\n\"The $2.4 million we spent in 1980 would have no relevance in\n1986,\" when he is up for reelection. He plans to spend between $6\nand $8 million in 1986 and to raise $6 million by the start of that\nyear.\nThe purpose of raising that much money is partly to run a strong\ncampaign, but it is also partly to discourage potential challengers.\nThe article mentioned that fundraising is almost a weekly part\nof the Senator's routine. That kind of effort has to detract from leg-\nislative duties.\nAs I stated earlier, I don't believe Members of Congress are sell-\ning votes. Clearly, the correlation between a Member's voting\nrecord and his or her campaign contribution list reflects philosophi-\ncal compatibility rather than any breach of public trust.\nBut there are instances, I am sure, where Members feel beholden\nto some interest group because of campaign contributions they\nhave received.\nBeyond concern about actual corruption of Members, however,\nthere is also a danger of damage to the reputation of the institu-\ntion caused by the appearance of Congress selling out to special in-\nterests. The most prominent example of this in recent years was\nlast year's congressional override of the Federal Trade Commis-\nsion's used car rule.\nThe vote in the House to disapprove the FTC rule, which was a\nmodest attempt to protect used car buyers against unscrupulous\ndealers, was 286 to 133. Editorial writers for leading newspapers\n206\ndrew a strong connection between campaign contributions made by\nthe used car dealers' political action committee and how Members\nvoted on the disapproval.\nIn fact, again the New York Times listed names and amounts of\nhow people voted.\nWhile no specific allegation of wrongdoing was or could be made,\nthe public perception of that vote was that Congress had sold out.\nStatistics taken from FEC reports showed that Members supporting\nthe used car dealers received roughly five times as much in contri-\nbutions as those Members who opposed the dealers, and that only\nadded to the perception.\nBeyond the vote itself, however, the used car rule showed what\naccess can mean in practical terms. The vote on the FTC rule was\ntaken on May 26. From May 24 to May 27, the House took 32 sub-\nstantive votes-31 of those were on the budget. In the midst of a\nbudget crisis that would see 7 budget plans go down, the House\ndropped everything to take up the FTC rule.\nThe problems of fundraising-the time lost that could be spent\nstudying issues and the influence wielded by contributors-exist for\nall Members except those who are independently wealthy, and we\nare seeing more and more candidates with pockets deep enough to\npay their own fare.\nFor the average candidate, dependent on outside contributions,\nthough, the problems are pretty universally shared, but there is, I\nam convinced, one special complicating factor for some candidates.\nSimply stated, it is harder for women to raise money than it is\nfor men. All other things being equal, politics is still a man's world,\nand the \"good old boy\" network responds more readily to new good\nold boys than it does to potential good old girls. One result is that\nqualified women candidates have a harder time breaking in than\ndo qualified men.\nNow, I would like to say the barriers to women are removed once\nshe does get elected, but it is not true. In fact, the difference be-\ntween women and men who are already elected officials may be\ngreater than the gap between women and men running for the first\ntime.\nRonald Reagan isn't the only one facing a gender gap in politics.\nFor each of these problems, the basic solution lies in some form\nof public financing, with limits on PAC contributions to candidates\nand limits on total campaign spending. These measures are needed\nto ease the pressure on Members to raise money, to reduce the\ndanger of the appearance of votes being bought, and to eliminate\ninequalities between men and women.\nPublic financing would free legislators to legislate without fear of\ncutting off their lifelines or falling behind potential opponents in\nthe bankroll race.\nAs a member of the Democratic Caucus Task Force on Campaign\nFinance Reform, I will be working to achieve passage of major cam-\npaign legislation, reform legislation, this year-in whatever spare\ntime I have after raising money for my next campaign and after I\nfinish paying off the $85,000 aebt I still owe from my first cam-\npaign for Congress in 1978.\nThank you, Mr. Chairman.\nMr. SWIFT. Thank you very much, Ms. Ferraro.\n207\nMr. Thomas.\nM THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.\nD. the gentlewoman from New York have an opponent in the\n1982 campaign?\nMs. FERRARO. I had three opponents.\nMr. THOMAS. Do you know how much they spent?\nMs. FERRARO. I have no idea.\nMr. THOMAS. I have no FEC data on that either, and I was curi-\nous because normaily at the $5,000 threshold they have to file the\namounts that they spend in a campaign above $5,000.\nI just notice that the gentlewoman spent $140,000, and apparent-\nly none of her opponents spent enough to even have to--\nMs. FERRARO. I am delighted you know that. $140,000 is not the\namount spent on that campaign. Part of that was paying back on\nmy old debt. My first campaign, I had a $170,000 debt. With each\ncampaign since, anything that has been in excess by law I am al-\nlowed to payback on my debt. So I think something like 50, or\nsomewhere around there, was spent to payback my old debt.\nMr. THOMAS. So one more campaign to go and you may be\nMs. FERRARO. No, no, I intend spending time away from my legis-\nlative duties raising money to payback my old debt so I can raise\nmore money for my next campaign and then see where I am going\nin the future-a tremendously good use of time.\nMr. THOMAS. In your opening remarks, you indicated that money\nis more important in politics than ever before, more time and\nenergy and thought is given to raising money, and campaigns are\nmore expensive than ever before.\nOn what did you base that?\nMs. FERRARO. On what did I base what?\nMr. THOMAS. What facts, research?\nMs. FERRARO. Personal experience.\nMr. THOMAS. Well, I just have a feeling that perhaps because the\nlaw now requires candidates to disclose their full funding sources,\nthat those people who are not familiar with some of the historical\ncampaigns-and for those of you in the audience who are not, I cer-\ntainly commend you to you the reading of Robert Carroll's book, at\nleast his first edition of three volumes, \"LBJ,\" in terms of the\namount of time sp ent raising money, the importance of money, and\nthe expense of campaigns in a period which is still in the 20th cen-\ntury, not to mention some of the practices done in the 19th cen-\ntury.\nMs. FERRARO. I wonder, Bill, if you could just lean into the mike\na little more. I can't hear you too well.\nThank you.\nMr. THOMAS. Well, my concern is that flat statements are made,\nand they are made only, in large part, because today we have a law\nwhich requires full disclosure in campaigns, and that historically to\nsay that money is more important than ever before, more money is\nspent now than was spent in the past, I think is more to say that\nwe know more about campaigns now, not necessarily that in fact\nthose statements are true.\nMs. FERRARO. Well, as a matter of fact, we did use the FEC re-\nports, and the statistics are in my fuller testimony. I didn't read\nthem.\n208\n1976, the average expenditures for all House and Senate races\nwas $111,000. In 1982, the average was $324,000.\nYou would agree with me that 324,000 in 1982 is more than\n111,000 in 1976, based on FEC reports.\nMr. THOMAS. I understand that, but we have to deal with con-\nstant dollars, and we would have to go back into history to take a\nlook at some campaigns.\nMs. FERRARO. Are you saying that that is an increase in inflation\nfrom $111,000 to $324,000?\nMr. THOMAS. Certainly not, but your record started in 1976.\nMs. FERRARO. That is right. From 1976 to 1982, I know inflation\nwas high before this administration got in--\nMr. THOMAS. Well, I understand that.\nMs. FERRARO [continuing]. But not quite that high.\nMr. THOMAS. But if the gentlewoman would look at her testimo-\nny, she said money is more important in politics than ever before,\nand she didn't qualify it since 1976.\nMs. FERRARO. Well, I would assume that—\nMr. THOMAS. And I am just saying that when we make very\nbroad, general, flat statements that perhaps we are doing more of a\ndisservice than a service unless we have some pretty solid facts to\nindicate that that in fact is a true, absolute statement.\nMs. FERRARO. Are you-well, I am not going to engage in an ar-\ngument with you.\nMr. THOMAS. I want to commend the gentle lady for her com-\nment on page 3 of her testimony, which indicated that she didn't\nthink that members are bought and sold. There were four lines\ncommending us there, and then she goes on for 24 lines of her testi-\nmony, carrying over to page 4, pointing out an example which can\nonly be assumed that people were bought and sold.\nBut my biggest concern in your testimony-and I wish you would\ncomment on it-is the indication that in the midst of a budget\ncrisis the budget voting was stopped and an FTC rule was voted on.\nAre you indicating that because of this procedure the Democratic\nParty leadership felt beholden to the used car industry?\nMs. FERRARO. I am saying there are evidently enough-\nMr. THOMAS. Because they are the ones who set the agenda.\nMs. FERRARO. There are evidently enough members who were\nasking that this be put on the floor, both majority and minority, I\nwould assume-in fact, if you took a close look at the votes, and\nthere is generally an accommodation with something like this-you\nand I both know that-between both the minority and majority-\nMr. THOMAS. I am sorry, but I do not. My experience has been\nthat we poll what we are doing.\nMs. FERRARO. Well, it has been my experience, and you and I\nboth came to the Congress in the same year. Bill. It has been my\nexperience\nMr. THOMAS. Your learning curve is much more rapid than mine,\nsince you are in the center of the power.\nMs. FERRARO [continuing]. That there are certain instances-\npardon me?\nMr. THOMAS. Your learning curve must be much more rapid than\nmine because you deal—\nMs. FERRARO. Obviously.\n209\nMs. FERRARO [continuing]. With the majority party, and I do not.\n[Laughter.]\nMr. SWIFT. That is probably a fair statement.\nMr. THOMAS. So you don't feel that the Democratic Party leader-\nship felt beholden, as you indicated on page 3?\nMs. FERRARO. I would say that both minority and majority sched-\nuled that vote because of pressures from both sides of the aisle, and\nI think it was done to accommodate the Members, and that is why\nit was scheduled that way.\nMr. THOMAS. I appreciate the gentle lady's testimony certainly.\nMr. FRENZEL. If the gentleman would yield?\nMr. THOMAS. Certainly.\nMr. FRENZEL. The gentle lady observes that the only thing Re-\npublican scheduled around here are softball games and coffee hour.\n[Laughter.]\nMr. THOMAS. My concern is that in testimony, when you have 5,\n6 times, 7 times, 10 times the amount of testimony pointing out\nthat Members, in effect, are bought and sold, it doesn't do a whole\nlot of good to throw in a gratuitous remark about the fact that per-\nhaps it really isn't true. I have fought this in terms of testimony\nbecause if we don't watch what we are saying and we go out in the\npublic and continue to point out in terms of all of the examples\nwhere clearly various groups have tried to turn figures around to\nprove the point that Members are bought and sold, that when all is\nsaid and done you drop in a line about the fact that you don't be-\nlieve it, really does a lot of damage to the integrity of this institu-\ntion.\nAnd I know the gentlewoman didn't mean to do that at all.\nMs. FERRARO. No. As a matter of fact-\nMr. THOMAS. But I am concerned about repetitions of this type in\nfront of us in testimony, that is all.\nMs. FERRARO. Let me submit to the gentleman that as a political\nscience lecturer that might be so, but if I were sitting with a\n$95,000 surplus as : ,u are that I might be a little bit concerned\nthat there would be some implication that my votes were not exact-\nly so, and I have no idea of how the gertleman votes on anything\nand who his contributors are.\nI don't have to worry about whether or not my votes look as if\nthey are bought. I don't get enough contributions. I guess that is\nprobably the problem. And I don't have a surplus. I still have a\ndebt, but I would submit that when you have surpluses like $95,000\nright after an election, and it is drawing interest 6 months later,\nthat you have a different view of public financing from those of us\nwho don't.\nMr. THOMAS. I understand the gentlewoman's point, and I would\nsay that the reason I thought it was necessary was because my\nspouse Was not able to provide a $100,000-plus cushion for me to\nutilize.\nMs. FERRARO. Neither was mine. The law prohibits that. It is\n$1,000 spouse contribution.\nMr. THOMAS. All of us deal—\nMs. FERRARO. That is another piece of legislation I would like to\nchange.\n210\nMr. THOMAS. All of us deal with running campaigns in different\nways.\nMs. FERRARO. That is decidedly SO.\nMr. THOMAS. And to the degree that we don't question each\nother's motives, the public tends not to question our motives. To\nthe degree there are those among us who question our colleagues\nin a general sense\nMs. FERRARO. Could I just ask on the record\nMr. THOMAS [continuing]. To an audience\nMs. FERRARO. Is the gentleman saying on the record that my\nhusband contributed $100,000 to my campaign?\nMr. THOMAS. No, I did not.\nMs. FERRARO. Oh, I just wanted you to make it perfectly\nclear\nMr. THOMAS. I was using a hypothetical. I assumed you were\nMs. FERRARO [continuing]. That my husband contributed $1,000\njust like the gentleman's wife was capable if she so chose, if she\nfelt he was an admirable candidate.\nMr. THOMAS. Nor did I have loans available. Did the gentlewom-\nan have loans available?\nMs. FERRARO. Absolutely. I went to the banks just like everybody\nelse.\nMr. THOMAS. Oh.\nMs. FERRARO. It was very difficult for me to get loans. They\nwouldn't do it on my signature alone, even though I was a practic-\ning attorney. I was told I had to have my husband's signature as a\ncosigner.\nThen when I explained that that was a violation of law, then I\nwas able to get loans. I was also able to sell property, which was\nmy property.\nMr. THOMAS. Well, this gentleman was not making personal ref-\nerences. I assumed\nMs. FERRARO. Well, I am delighted.\nMr. THOMAS. I was using a hypothetical as the gentlewoman used\na hypothetical.\nMs. FERRARO. I was under the impression that the gentleman\nwas\nMr. THOMAS. Did you use a hypothetical?\nMs. FEB MARO. 1 was under the impression that the gentleman\nwas implying that I had done something that was illegal.\nMr. THOMAS. No. I was using a hypothetical.\nMs. FERRARO. Just checking.\nMr. THOMAS. As you were using a hypothetical, I assume.\nMs. FERRARO. Well, T am glad that you have clarified that.\nMr. THOMAS. No, I like hypotheticals, and yours was a hypotheti-\ncal, I assume.\nI thank the Chairman.\nMr. SWIFT. The gentleman from California, Mr. Bates.\nMr. BATES. I agree with everything you said, and I am pleased\nthat you spoke this morning.\nThere are probably some historical instances where there were\noutrageous spending in the past years. I recall the Presidential\nyear when McKinley spent $12 million to William Jennings\n211\nBryan's $1 million, but I think as a rule that money plays too\nmuch of a role in politics.\nI would go even further than you in stating that I have the im-\npression that Members are bought and sold, and I think that the\ninfluence of money is a corrupting influence. I notice everyone is\nafraid to say that, and I don't say it to damage the institution, but\nhopefully to increase its credibility and reputation with the Ameri-\ncan public.\nI think the reason that the American public has such low esteem\nfor Congress as an institution and as for individuals is because it\ndoes occur, and I think to say that the impression that we bring it\non ourselves and that we are misunderstood, I think we are misun-\nderstanding the problem.\nSo I really appreciate your forthright comments.\nMs. FERRARO. Thank you.\nMr. THOMAS. Would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman\nbriefly?\nMr. BATES. I am through.\nMr. SWIFT. The gentleman from Minnesota.\nMr. FRENZEL. I want to thank the witness for her testimony. I\nappreciate her coming up here.\nI am always a little concerned when people make statements\nthat there is something wrong with Congress or that our colleagues\nare not as righteous as they should be. I hope in these kinds of dis-\ncussions that we can be rather specific if we believe someone is\nbreaking a law or a code of ethics.\nI notice you indicated that fundraising is distasteful. You don't\nlike it at all, huh?\nMs. FERRARO. No.\nMr. FRENZEL. You don't like to ask people for money on your\nown behalf?\nMs. FERRARO. I do not. Of course, I have been raised, I guess, in a\nway that one does not do that. One gces out and works for their\nsustenance, and I have never asked for anything until I ran for\nCongress.\nMr. FRENZEL. Well, I am a little different. I don't have trouble\nasking for money for myself or other political candidates if I think\nthey are good candidates, and I remember 10 years ago, when we\nstarted this debate, people used to say raising money was demean-\ning. To me it is neither demeaning nor distasteful.\nYou raised the question of access in your statement. What is the\nproblem of access?\nMs. FERRARO. I don't have a problem with it. Whenever you\nspeak about fundraising-and I have been discussing this with nu-\nmerous people in public financing-the response from, usually the\nPAC's, is that, oh, we don't buy votes, we buy access-getting into\nthe Members' office, getting to speak to them. In my office just\nabout anybody can come in and see me without having to contrib-\nute to my campaign, so that I feel access is not necessarily some-\nthing that has to be bought.\nMr. FRENZEL. My judgment, too. I can't recall that people who\nhave wanted to see me have been denied that opportunity. They\nmay have to wait in line.\n212\nMs. FERRARO. Well, I am telling you what I am told by PAC com-\nmittees, that what they are buying is access. If they felt that they\nhad access without contributing to campaigns, it amazes me that\nthey would bother to contribute to campaigns.\nMr. FRENZEL. OK; but they can all come see you whether they\ngive you money or not?\nMs. FERRARO. Absolutely.\nMr. FRENZEL. Me, too.\nThe used car rule was an interesting reference because it is used\nsort of endlessly by Common Cause in--\nMs. FERRARO. It is also-let me, if I could just interrupt the gen-\ntleman for a minute?\nMr. FRENZEL. Yes; go ahead.\nMs. FERRARO. I will be happy to give you the New York Times\neditorial. And what I was speaking about before is not necessarily\nthe fact that the votes are bought and sold, but the perception that\nvotes are bought and sold, and the correlation between the contri-\nbutions was just absolutely amazing, SO that is our biggest problem\nperhaps-that the perception is that we are selling our votes\nwhether or not in fact we are.\nMr. FRENZEL. But may I go a little farther with that?\nMs. FERRARO. Sure.\nMr. FRENZEL. I think those kinds cf analyses are juvenile. For in-\nstance, if you will take a labor vote-say we had a vote to repeal\nDavis-Bacon-you would find, oddly enough, that almost all of the\nfolks who got contributions from labor unions would vote against\nthat bill. It isn't because the labor unions gave them the money, it\nis that labor unions supported people who support their position.\nYou know, you got it backwards.\nMs. FERRARO. That's the problem you have, which came first,\nand that's again-it's a matter of public perception.\nLet me just say one other thing about the FTC rule with the\nused car dealers. In addition to the fact that the amounts of contri-\nbution were given to individuals, five times the amount for those\nwho voted \"yea\" according to the records, and the lesser amount to\nthose who voted \"nay,\" the amount of contributions between-from\nthe used car dealers, in 1 year, rose incredibly to the year when the\nvote was being taken.\nDavid, what was the difference?\nIn the year prior to that vote it was $14,000-total contributions?\n1976, $14,000 from that group; and in 1980, when the vote was\ntaken, $675,000. So, you know, that's probably why that vote is\nused so often, because, again, the amount of difference, difference\nin contributions between the people who voted \"yea\" and \"nay,\"\nand the amount of increase in contributions by that particular\ngroup of individuals between 1976 and 1980, when the vote was\ntaken.\nMr. FRENZEL. I am sure that any group which has an issue pend-\ning that is important to it is going to work hard. I recall\nMs. FERRARO. Now, that—\nMr. FRENZEL [continuing]. The commonsitus picketing bill. We\nhad large increases in contributions from labor unions and from\ncorporations or trade associations that had an interest in it. Again,\n213\nI rather think that people are looking under beds for boogey men\nin what seems to me to be a rather normal sort of a process.\nFor instance, I would vote for repeal of the FTC, because I think\nit's a pesty, very expensive organization. And yet, if-and I routine-\nly vote as much as I can to curb the powers of the FTC. I don't\nknow if I got any money from the used car dealers, but I bet I did.\nBut that didn't have anything to do with my vote. But, you know,\nyou ascribe motivation in sweeping terms that I think does not at\nall get at the complexity of the issue or the complexity of the proc-\ness.\nMs. FERRARO. I think whether or not it had a effect upon the\ngentleman's vote is something that the gentleman has to decide for\nhimself I can't make that decision. Now, I am not even implying\nthat it did. What I am saying to you is that the perception to the\npublic is that it did, and that's where our concern is.\nThe other thing, too, and you can take specific instances where\npeople are on taxes, where contributions come-it's common knowl-\nedge that committees like Ways and Means are terrific money-rais-\ning committees. You know, let's think about that a little bit. Which\nones are the big bucks committees to raise money for your cam-\npaigns? 1 mean, it's common knowledge down here. And for us to\nsit here and deny it to each other, I mean, you want to deny it,\ndeny it. But it's in everybody's head.\nMr. FRENZEL. Are you saying that those people who want to be\non Ways and Means Committee do it so they can raise more\nmoney?\nMs. FERRARO. No, not at all. I tried to get on Ways and Means. I\ntried to get on Ways and Means because I feel very strongly about\nworking on Tax Code.\nMr. FRENZEL. I'll bet you 90 percent of the members that come\ninto Congress try to get on Ways and Means.\nMs. FERRARO. That's precisely so, but I am saying to you that the\nlobbyists heavily support people on Ways and Means, because\nthey're looking for their own special interest, and that's where the\ncontribution magnitude is.\nMr. FRENZEL. That's where the issues are. Is that a surprise? I'll\nbet you\nMs. FERRARO. Again, you can go around this thing, you know, for\nthe whole day if you want, but my point is--\nMr. FRENZEL. I can't—\nMs. FERRARO [continuing]. That it's something that we-if\nyou're-again, you know, you're in a position where you are on\nthat committee-\nMr. FRENZEL. Yes.\nMs. FERRARO [continuing]. And you're sitting with $177,000 for\nthe next ( ampaign, and if I were in your spot, I would be very con-\ncerned about curbing my ability to raise money. I would be equally\nas concerned that perhaps someone might think that there's a per-\nception that the money is making a difference in my votes. I would\nbe equally as concerned. Maybe if I can raise a couple of hundred\nthousand dollars the next time around I might not sit here-I\nmight have a different attitude.\nBut I am just telling you what I honestly believe is the public\nperception. I am telling you what I honestly believe people are\n25-648 84 15\n214\nsaying. And I am telling you what I honestly believe will make 2.\ndifference in, if not the actual votes, then certainly the perception\nthat people have of Congress.\nMr. FRENZEL. Well, I thank you for your contribution, and I wish\nyou a lot of luck in your fundraising.\nMs. FERRARO. Thank you.\nMr. SWIFT. Mrs. Vucanovich?\nMrs. VUCANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would simply\nlike to comment from one woman to another, on your comment\nthat it is harder for women to raise money than it is for men,\nand-that it's still a man's world in politics. And one result is that\nqualified women candidates have a harder time breaking in than\ndo qualified men. I just would like to point out that that is a very\nabsolute statement.\nThere are two women in this last election who won in open seats.\nOne was Barbara Boxer, who raised $531,401. And I, who raised\n$604,624, probably the highest of any woman-\nMs. FERRARO. $624,000?\nMrs. VUCANOVICH. $604,624.\nMs. FERRARO. Bless you.\nMrs. VUCANOVICH. Barbara Boxer's opponent raised $603,000,\nand my opponent raised $248,000. And the average in open seats\nwas $360,000. To make a completely absolute statement that it is\nharder for women who were qualified to raise money is question-\nable as to whether that is really true.\nMs. FERRARO. Let me suggest where I get that information from.\nNot only is it from experience, and, of course, our experience in the\nnortheast is undoubtedly very different from what it is in Arizona.\nI understand that you were the finance chair—\nMrs. VUCANOVICH. I am from Nevada.\nMs. FERRARO [continuing]. For Senator Laxalt for awhile.\nMrs. VUCANOVICH. I am from Nevada.\nMs. FERRARO. I'm sorry. From Nevada. But you were the finance\nchair for--\nMrs. VUCANOVICH. No. I never was finance chairman for Senator\nLaxalt. I was his district representative in his Reno office.\nMs. FERRARO. Well, let me just suggest to you that we have\ngotten that information from the Women's Campaign Fund, from\nthe National Women's Political Caucus, from people who have\ndone a view survey nationally of women running for office, people\nwho have been involved in national campaigns for several years,\nand the-I mean, you obviously are an exception to the rule, as is\nBarbara Boxer. Peggy Heckler also raised a lot of money in Massa-\nchusetts. I believe her figure was something like $900,000, and\nBarney Frank raised $1.5 million. I believe that's what it was\nthere.\nBut I would welcome you in to see some of the other statistics on\nwomen raising money, women running for elections, running cam-\npaigns. That is maybe not absolute, but it is generally harder for a\nwomen to raise money, and these statistics are there from the\nWomen's Campaign Fund and National Women's Political Caucus,\nwhich I would be happy to share with the committee, so you will\nsee that.\n215\nMrs. VUCANOVICH. I just think that it's a very absolute state-\nment, and certainly is not supported by all of the facts.\nMs. FERRARO. Well, it should maybe be qualified with a \"general-\nly\" in front of it. Generally harder for a woman to raise money\nthan for a man.\nMrs. VUCANOVICH. I think so--\nMs. FERRARO. And what we will do is I will be happy to give you\nthe statistics from both the Women's Campaign Fund and from the\nNational Women's Political Caucus, for that, to show that that is a\nfact.\nMrs. VUCANOVICH. Thank you very much.\nMs. FERRARO. You're very welcome.\nMr. SWIFT. Gerry, thank you. I was going to refrain from making\nany comment, but I want to jump in just briefly on the used car\nthing, and it happened to us on the Alaska natural gas pipeline,\nand happened to us on a number of things.\nTo the extent that the media or our colleagues or so-called public\ninterest groups honestly believe Members are bought and sold, I\nsuppose they should say that. But what has troubled me is that I\nhave seen an awful lot of stories in which the cheap shot is the\neasy story to write or film. It's easy to explain why something hap-\npened on the floor of the House by rushing to the FEC rather than\ndoing any more detailed analysis. It is easy for Members of Con-\ngress who think they may be on the losing side of something to\nbegin casting aspersions upon their colleagues, based on FEC re-\nports. I know of one instance-and it happens to have been a Re-\npublican, as a matter of fact-of someone who was fairly well pillo-\nried on his vote on the FTC thing at the Senate level. But the man\nhe defeated raised more money from that particular group than he\nhad. Somehow along the line, what your opponent's contributions\nwere-which is clearly relevant to your motivations on these\nthings--don't get reported, because that's a more complicated news\nstory to write.\nI just think we have to be awfully careful, because what we're\nbasically dealing with here is public perception, and I don't think\nany of us should try to mislead the public one iota.\nBut misleading them into a greater skepticism of an institution\nabout which they are already cynical seems to me to serve no\npublic purpose whatsoever. I don't happen to believe that's what\nyour testimony reads, Gerry. I didn't read it that way at all. But I\nthink it has to be made clear that in using the information that we\nhave made available to the public through reforms, the media,\npublic officials, and groups that purport to report to the public all\nneed to be very, very responsible in utilizing that information-or\nwe just make matters a whole lot worse.\nMs. FERRARO. Let me suggest to the chairman two things. You\nhave indicated that there is a perception that there are things\ngoing on that might not be totally above board because of the\nMr. SWIFT. What I am saying is I think there is a public percep-\ntion, if I may-I think there is a public perception that in fact we\nare bought and sold by virtually every campaign contribution we\naccept.\nMs. FERRARO. And--\n216\nMr. SWIFT. You know that's not true, and have said so, and I\nknow it's not true. But irresponsibly utilizing information that you\ncan get from the FEC, for debating points, or because it's a slow\nnews day, depending on whether you are my colleagues. or the\nmedia, seems to me to be a very, very irresponsible thing to do vis-\na-vis the public.\nMs. FERRARO. Well, let me just suggest two things, and one is\nthat, first of all, the perception exists, and that if you are actually\nhere discussing public financing, for us to suggest that that percep-\ntion does not exist is to be putting your head under a barrel and\njust not bothering to look at light. I mean, it exists, and so it\nshould be brought out in the open and discussed, and I think we\nhave had a very open discussion on the perception, and I-you\nknow, it's up to you people to decide what you want to do with it,\nbut it exists, and, you know, you will have to deal with it.\nThe second thing is you say that people-media takes cheap\nshots. That's nothing new.\nMr. SWIFT. No, it's not.\nMs. FERRARO. I mean, they do it on trips that Members of Con-\ngress take.\nMr. SWIFT. That's right.\nMs. FERRARO. They're called junkets. Every time one of us goes\non a trip-and I have not taken any yet, any congressional trips,\nbut I will, in the future. I think that they are very, very important\nto learning abcut certain areas, to learning about issues. Talk\nabout cheap shots. It's done all the time. Do people have any con-\ncept that Members of Congress actually learn anything on those\nthings? Absolutely not. They think that you're out drinking and\neating\nMr. SWIFT. Well, Ms. Ferraro\nMs. FERRARO. And fooling around. So it's not\nMr. SWIFT. I am trying to agree with you.\nMs. FERRARO [continuing]. It's unusual. Well, I am too\n[Laughter.]\nMr. SWIFT. And I am having a great deal of difficulty doing it.\nMs. FERRARO. And I am aware of it.\nMr. SWIFT. But I am trying to agree with you.\nMs. FERRARO. I am aware of that, and what I am saying to you-\n[laughter].\nIs this. What I am saying to you is that I agree, they take a\ncheap shot at these bill-at these votes, they take a cheap shot at\njunkets. That's how they sell their papers, and what I am saying is\nI agree with you.\nBut what I am saying as well is that we cannot ignore the fact\nthat this is happening, that the media is doing it, and that there is\na public perception out there that we as Members of Congress have\nan obligation to deal with, and it's a perception that evolves\naround this particular issue, which is the only reason why I am\nhere.\nMr. SWIFT. I think that's exactly right. There is a public percep-\ntion that we must deal with, and the approach of the Obey bill and\nseveral of the other proposals are designed, I think-it is their\nbasic motive-to try and not only deal with the perception. but to\n217\ndeal with the issue in a way that that perception can honestly be\nasked to be changed.\nMs. FERRARO. I think if we do that, we can be asked of no more.\nMr. SWIFT. You are the most exciting witness we have had so far.\nMs. FERRARO. Thank you. I always like to get my blood pressure\nup a little bit, and Bill Thomas and I have this every time I testify\nbefore any committee that he is on, and I can't wait to get him\nbefore one of the ones that I am sitting up there on. [Laughter.]\nAnd he's down here.\nMr. THOMAS. Gerry-would the gentleman yield? Based upon the\nway you talk about the way you want to raise finances, you prob-\nably won't be in front of any important committee that I might\nwant to testify in.\nMs. FERRARO. Well, I am currently, now, on the Budget Commit-\ntee, and I am also on Public Works. I just hope there's nothing in\nyour district you're interested in. [Laughter.]\nMr. THOMAS. I have got my fingers crossed.\nMs. FERRARO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.\nSTATEMENT OF HON. GERALDINE A. FERRARO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM\nTHE STATE OF NEW YORK\nMr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to testify today on the need for cam-\npaign finance reform in congressional elections. I come before the Committee as a\ncosponsor of the Clean Campaign Act, H.R. 2490. Rather than discuss the specifics of\nthat legislation, however, on which this committee has already heard testimony, I\nwill instead focus on some general concerns that cause me to support campaign fi-\nnance reform.\nThere is little doubt that the key element in politics today is money. Money is\nmore important in politics than ever before. More time and energy and though is\ngiven to raising money than ever before. Campaigns are more expensive than ever\nbefore.\nAll the money being poured into political campaigns by various interest groups\nhas created the concern that votes are being bought and sold in a kind of ever-rising\nauction of public policy. Notwithstanding jokes about an honest politician being a\npolitician who, once bought, stays bought, there are some very serious questions\nhere. Basically, is public policy being made on the basis of information found in FEC\nreports or House and Senate committee reports?\nThe standard answer to this question by those who defend the current campaign\nfinance methods is that except in the rarest of cases, what is being purchased in\n\"access,\" and not votes. Let me state clearly my confidence that the overwhelming\nmajority of members of Congress have the integrity we demand of our public serv-\nants, and are not selling votes.\nThe problem, thought, is that even if there isn't outright bribery and corruption\ngoing on, the role of big campaign meney distorts the political process and the legis-\nlative process. It just gets to th point where the need to raise money dictates the\nactivities on a daily basis of Members of Congress. It takes up our time, it influences\nwho we see, what information we get, and it takes away from our efforts on more\nsubstantive business.\nThere are a few points I particularly wnat to make. First, there's the question of\nhow much time members put into raising money. I've been in Congress for five\nyears now. I understand from some more senior members that there was a time\nwhen fund-raising was not a year-round affair when a member could concentrate on\nlegislation until a month or two before Election Day, and only then turn to raising\nmomey.\nAll I can say is, those were the days. Fund-raising now, for most members, is a\nyear-round activity-all year, every year. Odd-numbered years and even-numbered\nyears. It's not at all uncommon for House members to start thinking about raising\nmoney for the next election before they've been sworn in after winning the last elec-\ntion.\nOne measure of the importance of fund-raising is the frequency of fund-raisers. A\nstandard feature of every day's schedule for most members is attending receptions\nfor other members. It's not at all unusual for three or four or even half a dozen\n218\nmembers to have fund-raisers on a given week-night. You're expected to go to help\nyour friends, and you expect them to show up to help make your own party a suc-\ncess.\nMore than the receptions for other members, though, the problem is the time we\nall spend raising money for our own campaigns. Fund-raising parties-one in Wa-\nshignton, one in the home district-are annual events. Putting together lists of invi-\ntees, lining up \"big-name\" sponsors, making arrangements for a room and refresh-\nments, all these things gobble up huge amounts of Members' and staffs' time. Per-\nsonally, I have to tell you, there is not part of this job I enjoy less than asking\npeople for money. And make no mistake, its a big part of the job.\nThe important thing to realize about how fund-raising distorts the work we're\nhere to do is that even if no campaign contribution ever affects even one vote by\neven one member, the need to spend time figuring out how to raise money detracts\nfrom members' ability to focus on issues.\nAnd, as you all know, we're talking about big money. The amounts of money\nspent by candidates for Congress have just sky-rocketed in recent years, far out-\nstripping inflation. In 1976, the average expenditures for all House and Senate races\nwas $111,000. Four years later, in 1980, the number had doubled to $211,000. And\nlast year it was $324,000, almost triple the 1976 level. In fact, the average spending\non House races in 1982 equalled the average spending totals for House and Senate\nraces combined in 1980. And the average Senate candidate in 1982 spent over $1.7\nmillion.\nThis trend shows no sign of slowing or reversing. Candidates regular talk about\nbuilding up \"war chests\" for future campaigns. These war chests are multi-purpose.\nA recent New York Times report quoted one Senator saying, \"The $2.4 million we\nspent in 1980 would have no relevance in 1986,\" when he is up for reelection. He\nplans to spend between six and eight million in 1986, and to raise $6 million by the\nstart of that year. The purpose of raising that much money is partly to run a strong\ncampaign-but it is also partly to discourage potential challengers.\nThe article mentioned that fund-raising is almost a weekly part of the Senator's\nroutine. That kind of effort has to detract from legislative duties.\nAs I stated earlier, I don't believe meinbers of Congress are selling votes. Clearly,\nthe correlation between a member's voting record and his or her campaign contribu-\ntion list reflects philosophical compatibility rather than any breach of public trust.\nBut there are instances when members feel beholden to some interest group be-\ncause of campaign contributions they have received.\nBeyond concern about actual corruption of Members of Congress, there is also the\ndanger of damage to the reputation of the institution caused by the appearance of\nCongress selling out to special interests. The most prominent example of this in\nrecent years was last year's congressional override of the Federal Trade Commis-\nsion's used car rule.\nThe vote in the House to disapprove the FTC rule, which was a modest attempt to\nprotect used car buyers against unscrupulous dealers, We 286 to 133. Editorial writ-\ners for leading newspapers drew a strong connection between campaign contribu-\ntions made by the used car dealers' political action committee and how members\nvoted on the disapproval.\nWhile no specific allegation of wrong-doing was of could be made, the public per-\nception of that vote was that Congress had sold out. Statistics taken from FEC re-\nports that showed members supporting the used car dealers receiving roughly five\ntimes as much in contributions as those members who opposed the dealers only\nadded to that perception.\nBeyond the vote itself, however, the used car rule showed what \"access\" can mean\nin practical terms. The vote on the FTC rule was taken on May 26. From May 24 to\nMay 27, the House took 32 substantive votes. Thirty-one of those were on the\nbudget. In the midst of a budget crisis that would see seven budget plans shot down,\nthe House dropped everything to take up the FTC rule.\nThe problem of fund-raising-the time lost that could be spent studying issues,\nand the influence wielded by contributors-exist for all members except those who\nare independently wealthy. And we are seeing more and more candidates with pock-\nets deep enough to pay their own fare. For the average candidate, dependent on out-\nside contributions, through, the problems are pretty universally shared. But there\nis, I am convinced, one special complicating factor for some candidates.\nSimply stated, it's harder for women to raise money than it is for men. All other\nthings being equal, politics is still a man's world, and the good old boy network re-\nsponds more readily to new good old boys than to potential good old girls. One result\nis that qualified women candidates have a harder time breaking in than do qualified\nmen.\n219\nI'd like to say the barriers to a woman are removed once she does get elected. But\nit's not true. In fact, the difference between women and men who are already elect-\ned officials may be greater than the gap between women and men running for the\nfirst time. Ronald Reagan isn't facing the only gender gap in American politics by\nany means.\nFor each of these problem, the basic solution lies in some form of public financing,\nwith limits on PAC contributions to candidates and limits on total campaign spend-\ning. These measures are needed to ease the pressure on members to raise money, to\nreduce the danger of the appearance of votes being bought, and to eliminate in-\nequalities between men and women. Public financing would free legislators to legis-\nlate without fear of cutting off their lifelines or falling behind potential opponents\nin the bankroll race. As a member of the Democratic Caucus task force on campaign\nfinance reform, I will be working to achieve passage of major campaign reform legis-\nlation-in whatever spare time I have after raising money for my next campaign\nand to pay off the $85,000 debt I still owe from my first campaign for Congress in\n1978.\nMr. SWIFT. Thank you very much, Ms. Ferraro.\nMr. Andy Jacobs? Your statement will be carried in full in the\nrecord, and you may proceed as you wish.\nTESTIMONY OF HON. ANDREW JACOBS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE\nIN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA\nMr. JACOBS. Well, here it is. I think the Congress of the United\nStates should be like Caesar's wife-\nMr. SWIFT. Excuse me just a moment.\n[Pause.]\nMr. SWIFT. Please proceed Andy.\nMr. JACOBS. I think the Congress of the United States should be\nlike Caesar's wife, and above suspicion. I am not here to point fin-\ngers at anybody. I am interested in what is right rather than who\nis right, and I am interested in the institution, the conflict of inter-\nest that is implied, and so on.\nI am also here to say that I agree with Representative Frenzel on\npractically everything, except PAC's; and that I believe that the\nperception of the public is that PAC contributions do have an influ-\nence which is not always in the public interest in the Congress.\nThe first example of public financing of campaigns was the old\nNew England town meeting, because the taxpayers put up the\nmoney for the town hall, and that was the means of communica-\ntion. I believe that the proper function of any political campaign is\nto communicate ideas, not buy funny hats or bring in movie stars\nto sing, but communicate ideas.\nI favor a public financing scheme by which not one nickel would\nbe given to any political committee or any candidate for Congress,\nbut where the facilities, the approximation of the New England\ntown meeting hall, namely, the electronic communications and\nother communications facilities, be provided at public expense in\nequal measure to those who achieve ballot position for the Con-\ngress of the United States. In short, I believe the public institution\nthrough which the Representatives and Senators are chosen should\nhave the same dignity as the public institution in which they serve.\nIt is now, I believe, unlawful for contributions to be made for\noffice expenses for Members of Congress, and I think we should\nmake the same restriction on the process or choosing Congress. It\nis unfortunate that this is a branch of Government so distinguished\nPLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OF EXCERPTS FROM THIS ABC NEWS TELE-\nVISION PROGRAM TO \"ABC NEWS' THIS WEEK WITH DAVID BRINKLEY.\"\nABC NEWS\nRESEARCH CENTER\nWHITE HOUSE LIBRARY\nTHIS WEEK WITH DAVID BRINKLEY\nSunday, August 19, 1984\nGUEST:\nREPRESENTATIVE GERALDINE FERRARO (D., N.Y.)\nDemocratic Vice Presidential Nominee\nINTERVIEWED BY:\nDavid Brinkley - ABC News\nGeorge F. Will - ABC News Analyst\nSam Donaldson - ABC News\nC\nCopyright 1984, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.\nAll Rights Reserved.\nTranscript by:\nRLS Reporting Associates\n850 Sligo Avenue\nSilver Spring, Maryland 20910\n(301) 875-9235\nABC News Press Contact: Elise Adde (202) 887-7237\n1\nMR. BRINKLEY: Coming next, the Democratic nominee for Vice\nPresident of the United States, Geraldine Ferraro -- in a moment.\n(Announcements)\nMR. BRINKLEY: Ms. Ferraro, thank you very much for coming\nin. Delighted to have you with us today.\nREP. FERRARO: Thank you.\nMR. BRINKLEY: Here with us is George Will of ABC News and\nSam Donaldson, ABC News White House Correspondent.\nMs. Ferraro, what caused your husband to change his mind?\nREP. FERRARO: He made the decision himself. He said,\n\"Gerry, I'm not going to hurt you and I'm going to release them,\" so\nI said, \"Fine.\" It was his decision.\nMR. BRINKLEY: So he was willing to take whatever problems\nmay be created to avoid interfering with your campaign?\nREP. FERRARO: John is a very strong, loving man of great\nintegrity and we know we're releasing all of the documents tomorrow,\nand we're hoping the American public will be satisfied.\nMR. WILL: One of the themes of the fairness issue as the\nMondale-Ferraro campaign is using it is that the rich aggressively\nuse, legally, but existing laws that should be changed and avoid paying\ntheir fair share of taxes. Tomorrow when these documents are\nreleased, will people say that the Ferraro-Zaccaro household has paid\nits fair share?\nREP. FERRARO: They sure will, and, George will, tomorrow\nafternoon you're going to call me up and apologize for your column of\ntoday.\n2\nMR. WILL: Which part?\nREP. FERRARO: The part where you say that we took advantage\nof all kinds of loopholes and probably didn't pay any taxes.\nMR. WILL: I said that was --\nREP. FERRARO: Take a look.\nMR. WILL: That was an inference encouraged by the refusal\non your part.\nREP. FERRARO: Take a look at the -- take a look at the tax\nreturns tomorrow and you'll see that we do pay taxes and we pay them\nseparately. But that will all come out tomorrow.\nI think what's happened over the past several weeks and one\nof the reasons why John decided to disclose was that people were\njumping to the most outrageous conclusions on a lot of things, and\nit was getting worse rather than better, and so he just decided.\nMR. DONALDSON: All right. Let's talk about the '78\nreturns. There is a story now that you underestimated the amount of\ncapital gains on that building that John Martin told us about, and\nyou're going to owe a lot more taxes, is that right?\nREP. FERRARO: Well, let's talk about the '78 returns\ntomorrow. Tomorrow what we're going to be doing -- and I've been\nsaying this, as you know, for the past several weeks. At every\nsingle press conference we've had, every time we've walked by a\nreporter, they've shouted at me, \"What's the answer on this stuff?\"\nWhat we have done is we've spent a lot of time with\naccountants and lawyers. In fact, we hired, I think, the best\naccounting firm in this country, Arthur Young, and they have been\n3\nspending really literally weeks going over our information. They are\ngoing to be doing a briefing tomorrow, a full -- an hour or two-hour\nbriefing, however long a period of time it takes to go over the\nmaterials that we are disclosing.\nMR. DONALDSON: All right. Your returns are going to be\nreleased tomorrow?\nREP. FERRARO: Those will be released tomorrow, and in\naddition to that, there will be a full briefing and that's what we'll\ndo at that time.\nMR. DONALDSON: All right. Let's talk then about matters of\nrecord, that are already in the public record.\nREP. FERRARO: Sure.\nMR. DONALDSON: Let's talk about the '78 loans to your\ncampaign. David Stein, on whom you say you relied for advice that the\nloans were proper and legal, says just the opposite, that in fact he\nwarned you that those kind of loans would not be proper and legal.\nREP. FERRARO: David Stein said that in front of about -- I\nthink there were between 10 and 12 people there. Those people have\nvery, very accurate memories, as do I and as do my husband.\nLet me just say to you, Sam, that the way the FEC found out\nabout those loans is because I reported them on my forms to the FEC.\nNow, if I knew I were doing something wrong I might have done what\ndid,\nJohn LeBoutillier / which is not report them at all. What I did was\nI reported them because I believed that what I was doing was\nabsolutely right. In addition to that -- wait just a minute -- in\naddition to that, had I intentionally violated the regulation or known\n4\nI was violating it, wouldn't I have sold my property ahead of time,\nwith time, and taken care of paying for those -- paying for the\nexpenses of the campaign.\nMR. DONALDSON: But you reported the loans, but, of course,\nthe $138,000.00 from your husband was channeled not only through your\nhusband but through various members of your family.\nREP. FERRARO: No, no, no, no, no. No.\nMR. DONALDSON: The inference some people draw is that you\nknew something was a little wrong there.\nREP. FERRARO: No, no, no, and that's part of the problem\nwith trying to discuss this in three minutes on this show, rather\nthan doing it fully, and that piece of it --\nMR. DONALDSON: Well, we have a little time today.\nREP. FERRARO: Well, do you want to spend the whole hour\ndiscussing it? We can, but what I'm going to be doing is, though\nwe're going to have a full briefing on all the disclosure things\ntomorrow, on Tuesday I'm going to be holding a press conference and\nI'll sit down and answer, you know, as many questions as people have,\nas long as they don't get redundant.\nBut I intend to fully explain to people what happened, but\nthat first instance -- first of all, you know, the other piece is the\nFEC has come back and said, \"Well, you know, we didn't -- we were\nconcerned about the inconsistencies.\" I worked as a prosecutor. I\nhandled investigations. If they were concerned about inconsistencies,\nif any existed, why didn't they call David Stein, who had been an\nattorney with that Commission, in to talk to them? Why didn't they\n5\ncall me in to talk to them? They didn't do any of that.\nMR. DONALDSON: Why would David Stein try to harm you now,\nMs. Ferraro?\nMS. FERRARO: Oh, Lord knows. Well, maybe because the\nstatute of limitations for malpractice has passed. Who knows?\nMR. DONALDSON: You're saying that that's what he was doing?\nMR. BRINKLEY: He's lying now, is that --\nMS. FERRARO: Yeah, exactly SO. We have several people who\nwill, you know, attest to that. I have no idea why he's doing that,\nbut I understand that there's also background checks being done on\nhim --\nMR. DONALDSON: Do you think he's been put up to this by the\nRepublicans?\nMS. FERRARO: I don't jump to conclusions, unlike other\npeople of my experience of the past month. No, I don't know why he's\ndoing it. I have no idea. We have to ask David Stein that, I guess.\nMR. WILL: Congress, in its very debatable wisdom, has made it\na felony to fill out disclosure forms improperly.\nMS. FERRARO: Uh-huh (affirmative).\nMR. WILL: You were required to list certain assets unless you\nhad no knowledge of them or no expectation to gain from them. Are you\nconfident that you did not violate that law? And this, as you know,\nis what Republicans are saying. They're saying when Ed Meese had\nproblems with his disclosure forms an independent counsel was\nappointed. Why shouldn't an independent counsel be appointed in your\ncase?\n6\nMS. FERRARO: Well, again, that's something I'm going to be\ndiscussing on Tuesday, and after we discuss it, you know, it's up to\nthe Department of Justice or up to whomever will appoint, the\nAdministration or, you know, the Ethics Committee to make that\ndecision. But, again, in that instance I checked off that I was\nentitled to the exemption. I didn't hide it. I put that right before\nthe Ethics Committee. You know, I've been doing that for five years.\nI did not -- I did not hide my --\nMR. DONALDSON: You said you were entitled to an exemption\nthat people now question whether you were entitled.\nREP. FERRARO: That's right. And what I --\nMR. DONALDSON: You are an officer, are you not, and you are\nhalf-owner of one of your husband's companies?\nREP. FERRARO: Well, that's not accurate, though let me just\nsay to you that what I will be doing is I will be discussing that on\nTuesday -- fully. Fully.\nMR. DONALDSON: Well, it's not accurate. May I just follow\nit up --\nREP. FERRARO: Fully.\nMR. DONALDSON: -- because I think --\nREP. FERRARO: You can follow it up --\nMR. DONALDSON: -- a lot of people have tuned in this morning\nto --\nREP. FERRARO: -- but I don't know if I'm going to discuss\nit.\nMR. DONALDSON: -- hear you answer questions about this\n7\ncontroversy.\nREP. FERRARO: Well, no doubt -- they've undoubtedly tuned\nin to hear me answer questions, but I think what they've also --\nthey also expect from me a full explanation of all the details, and\nI can't -- in all honesty, I cannot do it in a matter of minutes. The\nwhole package will come together.\nMR. DONALDSON: Well, I'm just asking about that one\ncompany. I don't pretend to know a lot about your husband's\nbusiness.\nREP. FERRARO: Well, that one company, Sam, as you know --\nMR. DONALDSON: P. Zaccaro Company?\nREP. FERRARO: No, no, but let me tell you that whole --\nthat whether or not I am an officer participating in profits,\nparticipating and knowing the business, goes to the heart of whether\nor not I was entitled to claim the exemption.\nMR. DONALDSON: Right.\nREP. FERRARO: And so it's not just one piece; it's a piece\nof a whole.\nMR. DONALDSON: So you say you were not entitled to profits?\nREP. FERRARO: And what I'm saying to you is that I will\ndiscuss that in full detail on Tuesday, You allow the President to\ncut off a question. Why don't you allow me that?\nMR. DONALDSON: Oh, you're very kind. May I just press one\nmore?\nREP. FERRARO: Uh-huh (affirmative).\nMR. DONALDSON: Last Sunday -- a lot has happened in the week.\n8\nREP. FERRARO: Sure.\nMR. DONALDSON: When you said that your husband wouldn't\nrelease his tax return, you said, \"Those of you women who are married\nto Italian men know what I mean.\" What did you mean?\nREP. FERRARO: Oh, that he's very independent and very\nprivate and has -- talks about -- keeps his business to himself.\nThat's what I meant.\nMR. DONALDSON: Well, a lot of Italians, including Governor\nCuomo, have taken exception to that remark.\nREP. FERRARO: Gee, I'm sorry that they misunderstood what\nI was saying.\nMR. BRINKLEY: If I may interrupt, we'll be back with more\nquestions in a moment.\n(Announcements)\n++++++++\nMR. BRINKLEY: We are back. Sam, did you have a followup\nquestion you wanted to --\nMR. DONALDSON: Two quick questions just to get your response\non the record. It is said that your husband rents to a large-scale\ndistributor of pornography, Star Distributor, Limited. What is your\nview of that? Should he be doing that?\nREP. FERRARO: Well, the thing about that, as you know, is\nhe rents a lot of space and I don't know if you know that when you\nrent space, as long as the person uses it for the purpose for which\nthe lease calls, there is no way you can check to find out exactly\nwhat they're doing. He rents for storage, What they store, you know,\n9\nis up to them.\nMR. DONALDSON: Are you saying he didn't know until the\nreporters began to bring it to light?\nREP. FERRARO: Oh, he sure did not know and, as a matter of\nfact, what he did was he -- as he mentioned, he called his attorney,\nhad them checked out to see if there was any violation of the lease\nand even attempted to move -- you know, to remove those people from\nthe premises but was told that that was not possible. The lease\ncomes up, I understand, in January, he told me, and --\nMR. DONALDSON: And he's going to drop it?\nREP. FERRARO: And he will undoubtedly not renew it.\nMR. DONALDSON: Second quick question. We saw a film of you\nfrom yesterday.\nREP. FERRARO: Yeah.\nMR. DONALDSON: In which a lot of people think you were\nproperly outraged at an article which brought up the possibility that\nthere was a mob connection with Mr. Zaccaro. Tell us about that.\nTell us how you feel about that.\nREP. FERRARO: I feel -- as I said in the film, I feel\noutraged. You know, a lot of us have grown up with vowels at the\nend of our name, and there has been a lot of discrimination, and we've\ngrown up accepting it. My husband is a very decent, honest man of\nintegrity. He is a loving father and has no connection to anything\nlike that. For anybody to imply, just because we're Italian Americans,\nthat we're connected to organized crime is -- is appalling. I mean,\nI just -- I have no other words to express my anger at someone\n10\nattempting to do that. You know, it's just one form of discrimination\nI feel. I'm sure other people who are discriminated against for some\nother reason feel as strongly as I do about this.\nMR. BRINKLEY: This has all blown up rather suddenly,\nshortly after you were nominated in great exuberance and happiness on\nthe part of many people. DO you feel -- do you feel you've been\nabused?\nREP. FERRARO: Oh, no, I have to -- you know, we kind of knew\nthat this was going to start. It's -- in a way, it's an indication\nperhaps that people aren't quite sure of how to deal with me. I'm\nthe first woman who has ever run for national office. Even the polls\nare kind of crazy, jumping up and down in different ways. I think\nwe'll get through this, and I'm hoping that come, oh, at least\nanother week, we get all the stuff out, people get to see it, the\nreporters get to spend time talking about it, doing it on television,\nand then I'd like by -- certainly by Labor Day to start discussing\nthe issues of this campaign.\nMR. WILL: Let's start now.\nREP. FERRARO: Ready to start discussing issues?\nMR. DONALDSON: Want to start now?\nMR. BRINKLEY: Let's start now.\nREP. FERRARO: Terrific.\nMR. BRINKLEY: I have one more thing I want to ask. During\nyour three terms in the house, Tip O'Neill, Speaker O'Neill --\nREP. FERRARO: Uh-huh (affirmative).\nMR. BRINKLEY: -- has been very helpful to you. Have you\n11\ntalked to him about this?\nREP. FERRARO: No, I haven't. I haven't spoken to Tip since\nthe convention. I guess I should have, but I haven't. I have not\ncalled. I've been so involved in doing the campaign.\nMR. BRINKLEY: That's because I was then going to ask what\nhe said.\nREP. FERRARO: No, I didn't.\nMR. BRINKLEY: All right.\nREP. FERRARO: Now you remind me, I've got to call him up a\nlittle bit later.\nMR. WILL: Well, let's rush Labor Day and talk about --\nREP. FERRARO: Oh, wait a minute. I asked -- when I was down\nin Congress, I've spoken to him about various things, but I did not\ncall him up with reference to this latest thing, you know. No, I was\ndown in Washington with Congress.\nMR. WILL: The Democratic platform implies strongly that\nRonald Reagan is to blame for the breakdown of arms control talks that\nthe Russians have walked out of. In the START talks, the President\nproposed substantial reductions of force levels. In the INF talks,\nhe proposed -- made actually four or five proposals, each one of which,\nstarting at a zero option, said, \"Pick a level, any level, of equality\nof this category of missiles.\" What complaint, specific complaint,\ndo you have with the President's proposals?\nREP. FERRARO: With the START talks, my specific complaint is\nthat what he's dealing with is he's dealing with land-based missiles\nand I think he's moved ahead with an unreasonable offer, in the first\n12\nplace, because that is where the bulk of the Soviet strategic weapons\nlie and their strength.\nWith reference to INF, I can't fault him. They walked out\nof the talks. They're the ones who got up and walked out. But I do\nfault him in not -- first of all, he's the first President since\nHerbert Hoover who has not sat down with the head of the Soviet Union\nand, in addition to that, when --\nMR. DONALDSON: They keep dying on him, though.\nREP. FERRARO: Well, you're right, but I mean, you get up and\ntalk to somebody. But in addition to that, he has not -- there was\ntalk of moving toward some sort of talks last month, and instead of\nmoving and start discussing the ASAT, he insisted that it be tied to\nStar Wars. I mean, I think what you have to do is you've got to sit\ndown and start moving, and that's where I fault him, in not attempting\neither to talk to them on a summit level or in agreeing at least to\nstart talking on some level.\nMR. WILL: The Democratic platform also is critical of the\nPresident on Grenada.\nREP. FERRARO: Uh-huh (affirmative).\nMR. WILL: Now, suppose you're the Vice President and a small\nCaribbean island has its government murdered, a small band of\nLeninist criminals, basically, is trying to consolidate power, there\nare a few hundred Americans on the island, and the democracies in the\nregion call and plead with the United States to intervene. Would\nVice President Ferraro say, \"No, we should let that country have a\nconsolidated communist government\"?\n13\nREP. FERRARO: Let me suggest to you that Vice President\nFerraro would not have jumped into that situation militarily, as did\nPresident Reagan. What I would have done, and which I was very\ncritical of the President about, was that I would have, first of all,\nseen if there was any way to move without using military power to\nnegotiate in order to solve the situation down there, number one.\nNumber two, I would have also determined whether or not those\nyoung students there were actually in danger or whether or not they\nwere going to be put in some sort of danger by the movement of our\nmilitary into that island. I've spoken to one of the kids who was\ndown there, and their biggest concern was after the invasion by our\ntroops, when they woke up and found people standing there who -- I\nmean, they didn't know, you know, who they were.\nSo I think the issue is not, you know, what I would have done\nunder some sort of circumstances. It's whether or not I would have\nproceeded militarily first.\nMR. WILL: You would have --\nREP. FERRARO: I think that's the last resort.\nMR. WILL: You would have tried to negotiate, and if they\nhad said, \"We're not going to negotiate.\"\nREP. FERRARO: Well, let me suggest to you --\nMR. WILL: \"We're going to go ahead consolidating power,\"\nthen it might have been too late.\nREP. FERRARO: Let me -- well, it might have been. If it\nwere, I mean, a whole bunch of --\nMR. WILL: But you're willing to take that risk?"
}