Senator HENNINGS. Do you believe this is fair since it can obviously be used to evade the law?

Mr. FELLOWS. In practice the law does not apply. The great majority of stations around the country are pretty careful that they provide equal opportunities whether it is for a spokesman or a candidate. I don't think that is fundamentally realistic myself.

I don't know that we should call for a change in the matter.

I think perhaps the control is all right where it is. But you need not fear that this causes a great unbalanced situation. Most of the larger stations particularly set up a routine whereby they check with the State committee or with the local political organization before they permit the sale of such time.

It isn't just walking in and saying, "I want to speak for Senator Hennings." It goes further than that. You are pretty careful about the whole deal. I don't believe any malpractice is resulting from that of any consequence at all.

Vince, do you have a notion as to whether the law should be changed in that respect?

Mr. WASILEWSKI. I think stations are very meticulous in even granting equal opportunity in the case of spokesmen which they do allow. There is a practice growing up whereby some stations may follow 1 or 2 courses. Some will allow only candidates to speak because they have laws exempting them from liability in case that candidate defames somebody.

Other stations prefer to retain the right to delete defamatory material which they can do from the speeches of supporting spokesmen. I know of no station that uses this to its own advantage and the disadvantage of a candidate. It is followed broadly because of the public-convenience concept that the stations operate.

Senator HENNINGS. My law firm represents one of the TV stations and the newspaper that controls it. A member of Congress came out during the 1952 campaign to make a statement against Stevenson. My partners, because of my political affiliation, thought they had better send this manuscript to a firm which was headed by a very prominent Republican in our city. He meticulously went over the script and made a number of corrections, deletions, and changes in it. Then when the out-State speaker went on he tossed the manuscript aside and went on in his own fashion. He said he never used a manuscript anyway and wasn't going to use one tonight. They let him go on and continue but they were in some difficulty about that conceivably because some of it was pretty strong material. So you do have many problems. Mr. FELLOWS. We have a great many problems.

Senator HENNINGS. We are aware of that. I am sure this committee is.

Senator Curtis, have you any questions now?

Senator CURTIS. I just want to say I share your feeling about free time. I do not think that it would be sound law to compel a business that must seek a license from the Federal Government to give some of its property away.

As a condition to holding that license, I think it would be a very bad departure. It might lead to many fields outside radio and TV.

Mr. FELLOWS I am very happy to hear you call it a business. That is what it is a business.

Senator CURTIS. As I see it, if the public treasury paid for time, it would fall in somewhat the same category.

Mr. FELLOWs. It would indeed.

Senator CURTIS. I believe there would be a tendency for one of two things to happen. If campaign money was available for candidates in a coming election either the "ins" would have an advantage or you would have to open it up so wide that splinter parties, candidates without any chance of being elected, and so on, could come in and say I want my share of this public bounty that is available.

Mr. FELLOWS. And what station would you use and what networks— all of them. And I think it might lead to a great many other evils too, without going into details, Senator. The very precedent.

Senator CURTIS. Yes. The other day we talked about the difficulty of determining how much money a new political party might have and it is conceivable that one could rise and maybe win an election at his first appearance so there would be no basis of checking back on what their strength was previously.

To prevent that from being an opportunity for all manner of splinter parties to get in on the free time would be quite a job. I just don't think it can be done.

From the standpoint of good advertising I could not expect a candidate to follow a script on television unless you provide him with one of the gadgets where he could look into the camera and read his script.

Mr. FELLOWS. It is up to him if he wants to use a teleprompter. Senator CURTIS. That is the only way you can require him to follow a manuscript.

Mr. FELLOWS. You can't require him to follow a manuscript. He can provide whatever equipment he wants. If he wants a teleprompter, he is able to purchase them. They are not common to all television stations. In the larger television stations they are. Senator CURTIS. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman. Senator HENNINGS. Thank you, Senator Curtis.

There are no further questions. We could with great profit discuss this matter with you the rest of the day. There are unfortunately time limitations. We have a number of witnesses. But I again want to thank you very much for coming here and giving us the benefit of your very sound experience and your practical viewpoint.

Mr. FELLOWS. I am very happy for the privilege, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen.

Senator HENNINGS. Thank you, sir.

Our next witness is Prof. Alexander Heard. Will you come forward, please, Professor Heard. We are very grateful to you for taking the time to come here this morning to give us the benefit of your study and experience and thought over a number of years on this problem that is before us, this and other related problems. Have you a statement to read?

TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER HEARD, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. HEARD. I thought I might start out by reading a statement. It shouldn't take very long.

Senator HENNINGS. You may start out any way you please.

Mr. HEARD. It will indicate some lines along which we have been thinking and-

Mr. DEMPSEY. May I suggest that Mr. Heard briefly identify himself and perhaps mention the study you are conducting?

Senator HENNINGS. Yes, of course; we want it in the record-I was about to ask you to tell us a little about yourself without undue modesty.

Mr. HEARD. I teach political science at the University of North Carolina.

For about 2 years we have been very much interested in this subject. We have been studying it as best we can from such official records as are available and also from a great deal of interviewing on an informal, confidential basis with the practitioners.

Senator HENNINGS. You mean the practical politicians?
Mr. HEARD. Yes, sir.

Senator HENNINGS. Candidates?

Mr. HEARD. Candidates and officeholders.

Senator HENNINGS. And others of the political party machinery? Mr. HEARD. And others also. Some who are not themselves politicians but who may be engaged in broadcasting and television.

We had some cooperation from a good many people across the country in this in order to try to get the feel of the situation in different parts of the country, in local politics as well as at the national level. I thought what I would do would be to just pull out some ideas which strike us as useful for consideration.

Senator HENNINGS. You are a graduate of what college or university?

Mr. HEARD. I did my undergraduate work at the University of North Carolina and got my graduate degrees at Columbia University in New York City. I have been teaching at the University of North Carolina since 1950.

Senator HENNINGS. You took your degree in political science?
Mr. HEARD. Yes.

Senator HENNINGS. You may proceed in any manner you like, sir. Thank you.

Mr. HEARD. All right. Let me go through this and then perhaps when I have finished, if there are some aspects of this you would like to talk about or I did write a letter to you on March 10 which commented on some of the details of S. 636.

Senator HENNINGS. Yes; it was a very excellent letter.

Mr. HEARD. There might be some matters in it about which we could talk.

Senator HENNINGS. I appreciate it.

Mr. HEARD. We need to stop looking on the cost of political campaigning as an evil to be cured. We need to start looking on it as a necessary and inherent part of the American system of democratic elections.

We need to turn in our legislation away from the wholesale negative approach of ceilings, limitations, and prohibitions, and instead ask ourselves what can be done through positive action to give us a better method of financing political campaigns.

Under our present system of private financing, financial contribu- . tions are an inevitable and legitimate form of political participation. We spend much energy and money in the United States seeking to

obtain the widest possible participation in politics. Contributing money to politics is just as honorable a way to participate as contributing time or talent-in ringing doorbells, attending party meetings, making speeches, writing letters to Congressmen, or offering oneself for public office.

And financial contribution is only one of many elements in success at the polls and only one of many avenues to political influence, and by no means the most important one.

The effects of money in elections cannot be wholly eliminated, any more than can the effects of political organization, speech writing, readiness in debate, or political personality.

As a starter, let us set three simple goals for a healthy political system. Then let us see what can be done through legislation to work toward them, which may or may not be very much, and certainly will not be all that can be done.

I think, for example, the parties themselves and the State government can do a great deal.

First, let us try to see that the electorate has adequate opportunity to observe and judge the viewpoint and personalities of all responsible political competitors.

Second, let us try to help party and public officials maintain that happy blend essential to representative government: Independence of controlling influences of whatever origin, combined with alert responsiveness to the interests of their constituents.

Third, let us try to see that our electoral institutions are operated, regulated, and understood in such a way that faith in their integrity and effectiveness will be justified, and will be widespread.

Again, as a starter, let us suggest some of the things that Congress might do. And I should say that we all appreciate that this is a highly technical and difficult subject about which to legislate.

Those who have studied the matter appreciate as much as any how complicated it is.

Abandon the myth we have nursed so long that campaign costs are "too high." They are neither too high nor too low. They are simply what they are because of the necessities of campaigning in the American political system.

In fact, given the enormous number of diverse political interests in this Nation of 160 million people, given the enormous number of elective officers-over three-quarters of a million-given the crush and chaos of our campaigns, and given the transcendant importance of elective officials in the government, and of the government in the country, we should wonder why so little rather than so much money is spent.

I think we should realize, too-although comparisons with other nations are extremely difficult to make-that the cost per citizen per contest of compaigning in the United States is probably no higher than, let us say, in Great Britain.

Abandon the effort to impose ceilings on the amount of money that can be spent. The only ceilings realistic enough to be enforced must be as high as the amount of money that would be spent anyway.

What can the Congress do to help give the electorate adequate access to candidates and parties? or, turning it around, How can political competitors be assured adequate and equitable access to the voters?

I shall mention only one specific step, though much else can be done by State and Federal Governments. This step is the most obvious, most discussed, most feasible, most important, and most agreed upon step that can be taken: Use Federal authority over the air waves to guarantee that responsible political competitors have balanced and limited access to radio and television time, either at reduced cost or at no cost to themselves. The Federal Government has the jurisdiction and, through its regulatory and licensing activities, it has the machinery.

This step would not only tend to set up conditions of equal competition between the parties, but it would also reduce the new and gigantic financial burden imposed on parties and candidates by the costs of air time.

In 1952, approximately 16.8 percent (or $375,693.92) of the net expenditures of the Democratic National Committee, and approximately 21.4 percent (or $645,125.83) of the net expenditures of the Republican National Committee, went for radio and television costs. Corresponding figures for some, but not all, of the other important committees were I want to make the point that this is an enormous share of campaign costs-56.9 percent (or $422,274.18) for the National Volunteers for Stevenson; 28.0 percent (or $361,216.45) for the National Republican Congressional Committee; 93.2 percent (or $694,755.24) for the Stevenson-Sparkman Forum Committee: 55.5 percent (or $277,605.82) for the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee; 39.5 percent (or $248,373.14) for the New York Republican State Committee; 11.6 percent (or $26,854.69) for the New York Democratic State Committee; and 33 percent (or $112.087.95) for the CIO-PAC educational account.

In order to help candidates and parties raise the funds they need, and to encourage widespread financial participation in politics, the Congress should consider making contributions to authorized political committees deductible for income-tax purposes.

For purposes of discussion, I suggest that $500 per person per committee per year be made deductible. Some other figure might prove

better.

To do this would encourage small and moderate contributions by putting them on a plane of respectability and civic duty along with contributions to charitable and other worthy causes.

For those who itemize their income-tax deductions, there would be the additional incentive.

And why not consider also permitting candidates to deduct certain campaign expenses paid from their own pockets, in the manner of a business deduction?

These measures, and the reduction in costs of air time, should lessen the need for large contributions. In order to allay public fears and to help protect party and public officials from undue pressures, I recommend that a prohibitive gift tax be placed on the total annual political contributions of an individual above a certain figure-and for purposes of discussion, I will say $3,000 per year.

These steps would place enforcement on the same plane as that of the present income-tax and gift-tax laws, which would be a considerable improvement, and the Congress could provide for as severe penalties for violation as it wished.