Essay: NOW IS THE FOR ALL GOOD MEN . . .

(5 of 6)

Now before the Senate is a new compromise package containing three ideas. First, a stiffer reporting system would exclude spending limits for federal office seekers but retain the $5,000 ceiling on individual gifts and extend disclosure rules to intrastate committees. Second, a proposed income-tax credit of half of any campaign gift up to $50 would mean a potential $25 cut in taxes. (Credits are more popular than tax deductions, which mainly benefit higher-bracket contributors.) Third, a proposed subsidy formula would give each major-party presidential candidate $14 million in federal funds this year and each major-party senatorial candidate a minimum $100,000—provided that such candidates spurn all private funds. An even stiffer House bill would, among other things, force candidates to disclose how they used the proceeds of those $100-a-plate-and-up "testimonial dinners," some of which raise $400,000 at one sitting. A reaction to the case of Senator Thomas Dodd, this would bolster the Internal Revenue Service rule that a candidate can tax-deduct dinner proceeds only if he uses them for campaigning—not for personal expenses.

None of this has a prayer of passage. Senate leaders consider the details of campaign contributions none of the public's business; budget watchers are aghast at campaign subsidies. Action is in any case unlikely amid the presidential campaign.

While Congress stalls on federal reforms, the states could move ahead by taking over get-out-the-vote drives and making registration easier, by mailing every voter a state-paid summary of candidates' qualifications (as does Oregon), and granting free time on state-run educational TV. There is no good reason why candidates should not be given office space in public buildings and cash subsidies, perhaps contingent on shorter, cost-cutting campaigns. Localities could transport voters to the polls in school buses and pay for poll watchers—all small expenses that nevertheless dent campaign funds.

Candidates themselves could save thousands in TV costs by using small radio stations that focus on specialized audiences, such as farmers, Negroes, Spanish-Americans. Radio is far cheaper than TV—$100 a minute is typical. Parties might also create endowment funds to build party resources for the future; candidates might incorporate their campaigns as nonprofit corporations, selling shares to supporters and issuing audited financial reports to voters.

Business can and should get into the political act. Potentially, one of the most effective fund-raising devices in the U.S. today is the payroll deduction on a voluntary basis. The pioneer in this respect is California's Aerojet General Corp., where in 1964 three-quarters of the employees gave an average $6.85—a total of $136,000 for 157 candidates of both parties. At Hughes Aircraft, where gifts averaged $13.76 and totaled $86,053, contribution cards were coded and locked up to ensure privacy for the donors, two-thirds of whom were first-time givers. More than 50 other California companies now run such bipartisan plans, which include plant registration drives and candidate speeches before surprisingly alert, lunch-munching employees.