The Congress: Repenting in Leisure

• Share

In its closing hours, the 89th Congress hastily enacted a Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act that would have poured as much as $30 million apiece into Democratic and Republican coffers in time for the '68 races. At the time, no one gave much consideration to the seemingly endless ramifications of the new law. Last week, having repented in leisure, the Senate ended a two-week debate by voting 48 to 42 to repeal the measure and thereby open the way to a more detailed examination of the problem of financing modern campaigns.

Deceptively Simple. No one denies that a presidential contest—with costly TV and radio commercials—requires vast amounts of money, or that basic changes are needed to ensure that wealthy candidates do not enjoy unfair advantages. The Long Act, named for Senate Finance Chairman Russell Long, sought to solve the problem in a deceptively simple manner. Basically, it allowed each taxpayer to check a box on his federal income tax return allotting $1 (on joint returns, $2) of his tax payment for presidential campaigns. The taxpayer could not denote what party or what candidate he wanted to receive his money. The fund would total about $60 million if everyone marked the box.

The fight to repeal the act was led by Tennessee Democrat Albert Gore, who feared that if such a subsidy were made available before existing laws governing campaign contributions and expenses are overhauled, "we shall simply never achieve reform." New York Democrat Robert Kennedy noted that while the money would theoretically be used only in presidential contests, the act was so loosely worded that funds could easily be diverted to boost favored local candi dates. With such a huge fund at his disposal, an incumbent President could wield vast control over local party machines. In Kennedy's case, the implications for 1972 were all too obvious.

Unanimous Rosters. In the end, an unusual coalition of 15 Democrats and 33 Republicans—every G.O.P. Senator on the floor—voted to kill the Long Act. The House has yet to act. The G.O.P.'s rare unanimity in the Senate may be partially explained by the fact that the Republicans, unlike the Democrats, do not know who their '68 presidential nominee will be and are reluctant to sign such a huge blank check.