party as a whole. If a man gave $5,000 to a candidate running for office in this State, he also gave $5,000 to the State committee or a county committee, and the State committee or the county committee turned over some of the money to the candidate would be in violation of the law?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. He would. Suppose that the Vermont State Republican Committee just put billboards all over Vermont that said, "vote Republican,' or distributed leaflets that said, "vote Republican;" that could be considered to be a contribution to the Republican candidate for President and anybody who contributed to it and has already given $5,000 to the candidate would be in violation. The committee might be in violation; the candidate might be in violation.

Senator PROUTY. That is the way I have interpreted the bill which has been reported and I think that should be brought out. I have no further questions.

Senator CANNON. Senator Cooper.

Senator COOPER. Senator Prouty and Senator Cannon both serve on the Commerce Committee and in addition Senator Cannon has been chairman of the subcommittee for many years and I think we have reported a number of bills to the Senate but they rested there in the Senate without any action.

I think your statement has been very clear and very helpful. Like all of us, we have been in a campaign where we have had to consider these problems and I may have had a unique experience having been a candidate for the U.S. Senate seven times within a rather limited number of years. But I agree wholly this is the most desirable bill which could be reported by this committee which would be specific by its terms and most understandable by the people and by the Congress and by the candidates. I do agree disclosure is the most important element. Whatever individuals do in the way of contribution, wherever they are, if it is known, and if it is made known at intervals before the election, people are interested and have a chance to make that determination about whether it is proper or not.

I would like to ask two or three questions upon specifics.

First, as I understand, you recommend against any top ceiling upon total expenditures?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. Well, no; I just say that there should be no limit imposed upon the amount which one individual can give. We agree that there should be a top limit on the total amount that a candidate can spend.

Senator PROUTY. But actually there is no limit on campaign expenditures except as they relate to TV and radio and other specified forms of nonbroadcast communications advertising.

Mr. KLEINDIENST. That is correct.

Senator PROUTY. And a man could spend a million dollars for other purposes if he found some way he could do it.

Mr. KLEINDIENST. Right. I refer only to the top limit on TV, radio, and other media.

Senator COOPER. I was coming to that point. There are no limits. other than the limits which are placed in the bill before us upon broadcasting media expenditures and nonbroadcast expenditures. Mr. KLEINDIENST. That is correct.

Senator COOPER. You do impose a limit upon broadcasting and nonbroadcasting media expenditures?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. We believe that there should be some fair maximum of the amount that you can spend on your so-called media expenditures. Other than that we do not believe that there should be because you are now talking about staff, travel, headquarters rent, a variety of ingredients that really don't realistically lend themselves to fair election laws.

Senator COOPER. You are saying that you favor a limit of some type but that the limit which is proposed by this bill is too small?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. Yes, sir; we believe that the limit and the manner in which this bill treats the allocation of moneys for media is both too low and too rigid. It doesn't allow the flexibility that lends itself to requirements of campaigning in various sections of the country. I think your State of Kentucky is one of the best examples you could have.

Senator COOPER. We now have pretty good facilities throughout the State. One time I remember we had to go outside of the State, sush as Nashville, Tenn.

I have noticed myself that in campaigns there is an increased reliance on television, which is natural, and that more and more money goes into television. Without some limitation the amounts we would like to have or think necessary would be so large that it does place burdens upon different types of candidates who are not wealthy or who are not known. There are different problems connected with it. I think after reading this bill that the amounts are too low and I would also agree there should be some flexibility as to the transfer from one media to another. I think there should be some limits or top ceiling. Mr. KLEINDIENST. We share that point of view, Senator.

Senator COOPER. I also agree without any reflection upon the Secretary, concerning the filing with the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House whose duties are more ministerial. I myself believe that the responsibility should be placed with some public agency appointed by the President. The General Accounting Office could be a very good solution. It has the staff available and it has the experience of conducting various kinds of reporting and investigation. It would have the counsel necessary to take the legal action which might be required during the course of an election to secure conformance with the requirement. I certainly think that should be done. It should not be left with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. They don't have the proper staffs.

I would like to ask a question concerning groups in the country which enter into political activities. We see large advertisements in newspapers all the time to contribute money to causes of various types, chiefly connected with war or having some bearing on the war in Vietnam or on our environmental problems. Included are pleas for money for the election of or defeat of certain individuals.

Now is there anything in this bill that contemplates that large sums of money would be collected through these types of mass appeals for money?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. Well, one way it touches upon it is the prohibition of indirectly contributing money to a candidate. If you gave to an organization which had a cause and it was identified for or against

a candidate, then the person who gave money to that cause would indirectly be making a contribution for or against the candidate and would violate the law.

Senator COOPER. There certainly would be nothing wrong with appeals through any kind of media in support of or against candidates, that is their right. But if money should be collected and then contributed to candidates or organizations, would these contributions in your judgment fall within the purview of the bill?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. Someone called attention to section 203 on page 18 of the bill. Section 203, "(b) Whoever, acting on behalf of any political committee (including any State or local committee of a political party), directly or indirectly, intentionally or willfully solicits, or is in any manner concerned in soliciting, any assessment, subscription, or contribution for the use of such political committee or for any political purpose whatever from any officer or employee of the United States (other than an elected officer) shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

The purpose of that is to prevent pressure on persons employed by the United States or Government employees. But assume a candidate living in one of the adjoining States like Virginia or Maryland should have a committee send out mail generally soliciting contributions for example, $1, $2, or $5. Would it be a criminal violation?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. I think I would oppose the language that is contained in subparagraph (b) of section 203. I think the Hatch Act is sufficient the way it is. It prevents Government employees soliciting other Government employees and a second section prohibits solicitation on Government property. But I believe that any nongovernment person should have the right to solicit contributions. from Government employees like any other citizen of our society. If a Government employee wants to make a political contribution and he is solicited by somebody outside of the Government, I think he ought to be entitled to do it and that person ought to be entitled to make the solicitation.

I think the Hatch Act, however, is correct insofar as it prohibits Government employees from soliciting other Government employees or solicitation on Government property. I think the example you give is correct, Senator Cooper, because if there were just a wide appeal through the mails, using a list of names from the telephone directory, which said, "please send $5 for Senator X's campaign in the State of Maryland" and that appeal went to the home of a Government employee, it would violate that section of the law. So long as it is properly done, I think the Government employee has the same if not higher stake in his Government than most people do. He is employed by it; I think he ought to be able to participate as long as solicitations are free of undue influence and corruption.

Senator COOPER. I raise these legal questions. There have always been problems in connection with the Corrupt Practices Act and with the reporting of funds and use of funds, where certain types of organizations are prohibited from donating to political campaigns, such as labor unions, yet are able to set up separate organizations and receive contributions from members and use those contributions for political purposes. Of course, if this bill is enacted it would affect those

organizations equally with all other organizations. There have been other types of contributions such as release of employees from work with pay to assist in a campaign.

Mr. KLEINDIENST. Right.

Senator COOPER. To do political work.

Mr. KLEINDIENST. That is prohibited.

Senator COOPER. However, there seems to be no control or bar on that kind of activity.

Mr. KLEINDIENST. It is against the law but it is exceedingly difficult to prove and to enforce.

Senator COOPER. The courts have passed on some of these types of activity and have referred to the protection of the first amendment. I don't think they have ever been passed upon clearly by the Supreme Court.

Mr. KLEINDIENST. It has not been, no, sir.

Senator JORDAN. Mr. Kleindienst, title III of this bill has a section which would provide certain inducements for taxpayers to make a contribution, $20 in one case and up to $100 in other cases. The theory is that it would be well for many people to contribute a smaller amount for the candidates of their choice. Thus they would take an interest in those they select for their government. I think that is very wise. What is really needed, however, is to curtail the abuse in connection with the big contributions. We are going to have to find some way to keep vast sums of money from flowing into the campaign chests of candidates without the public knowing where it came from and how it was spent.

Mr. KLEINDIENST. I favor a provision that would permit any citizen to deduct a hundred dollars from his gross income before the payment of taxes if he made it to, let's say, the Democratic National Committee or Republican National Committee as a means by which to get the broadest base of participation and encouragement of ordinary citizens in the election process. And I think if such a provision existed you would find thousands of citizens doing it with a lessening need for large contributions. I think it would strengthen the Democratic process in this country and the money that we would lose from the Internal Revenue collection aspect of it would be well worth the price, in my opinion.

Senator JORDAN. Thank you.

Senator CANNON. Mr. Kleindienst, in response to Senator Cooper's question you said that Government employees could not solicit other Government employees on Government property. That restriction applies beyond that; they can't solicit other Government employees, period.

Mr. KLEINDIENST. There are two prohibitions. One employee can't solicit another, and the second violation is on Government property. Senator CANNON. So that I am wondering isn't it rather unrealistic to make a provision that Government employees can't be solicited for contributions. For example, general mailings that go out, should they be excluded from participating in the political process?

Mr. KLEINDIENST. In my opinion a non-Government person should be able to solicit a Government employee for a contribution to a candidate or a political party.

Senator CANNON. Thank you very much. We appreciate your being here.

Mr. KLEINDIENST. Thank you.

Senator CANNON. The next witness is Senator Ernest Hollings. For the record, I would like to state that the committee does have permission to sit while the Congress is in session.

We are happy to have you here with us.

STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you very much.

My distinguished colleagues, I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to discuss S. 382, the proposed Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

I appear individually and not as the chairman of the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee. The committee itself has not had an opportunity to meet as a committee and review the provisions in S. 382.

The Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 embodies the campaign regulations under which we all now operate. This act is so fraught with loopholes as to be totally meaningless. It purports to limit individual contributions to $5,000 but does not cover State or District of Columbia committees. It purports to limit total contributions and expenditures, but it sets a $3 million level for each committee, and it imposes a maximum expenditure level on the individual candidate of $25,000 for a Senate race and $5,000 for a House race. No one can deny that these provisions are evaded, primarily because they are unrealistic.

S. 382 is an attempt to impose realistic regulations, and I am in full accord with this purpose. Since all of you gentlemen, like myself, have had to run campaigns, we are well aware of the skyrocketing costs. As the costs increase, so does the pressure on the candidate to obtain adequate financing. The influence which money can play in a campaign must be minimized, but it must be done in a realistic fashion. Title I of S. 382 is an attempt at realistic expenditure limitation. In regulating communication expenditures, it limits the most expensive part of a campaign and the part that has the greatest impact on the voter. At the same time, it allows flexibility by not trying to impose one overall limit. Further, by basing the limit on the number of potential voters and by allowing for a cost of living increase, it permits the level of the limit to change with the times. Such flexibility is totally absent from the present law.

Turning to title II which is the primary concern of this subcommittee. I would say again that the regulations must be realistic in order to be enforceable. Unfair or unduly restrictive regulations invite circumvention, and in the long run hurt the process they purport to protect. Several of the proposed amendments to title 18 of the United States Code warrant particularly close scrutiny by this subcommittee.

Section 203 would add a new subsection to 18 U.S.C. 602 to prohibit any solicitation of all nonelected employees of the United States for any political purpose. The present section 602 is designed to prevent coercive solicitation of a Federal employee by a fellow employee, boss, or candidate. This is a desirable provision and should be retained. However, I question the need for the proposed amendment, and I particularly question its breadth-just as you gentlemen did in the