Remarks About Proposed Legislation To Establish a Nonpartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform.

Good afternoon:

In my televised address to the Nation 2 weeks ago, I called on the leaders of both political parties, and on citizens everywhere, to join in working toward new ways of ensuring that future elections would be as nearly free of abuse as possible.

To achieve this goal, I have today proposed to the Congress the establishment of a nonpartisan, top-level, independent commission charged with making concrete proposals for reform--not only to examine our laws and see what new ones are needed, but also to examine the observance and enforcement of our laws, and those campaign standards and practices not governed by law but rooted in common usage.

This Commission would be composed of 17 members. Eight would be chosen by and from the Congress--two Democrats and two Republicans from the House, two Democrats and two Republicans from the Senate. Seven public members would be chosen by the President for their experience, knowledge, and perspective in this field--of whom no more than four could be from the same political party. The chairmen of the Democratic and Republican National Committees would also serve on the panel. To ensure further the Commission's complete independence, its chairman and vice chairman would be selected from among the members of the Commission by the Commission itself.

I trust the Congress will act swiftly to establish the Commission. Yesterday I met with the bipartisan leadership of the Congress to discuss this matter. The proposal I am making today incorporates suggestions made by them, and my discussions with them have given me reason to believe that swift action in the Congress is possible. If the Congress does give this proposal its quick approval, then the Commission's report and recommendations can provide the basis for reforms that could be in place in time for the 1974 Congressional elections.

The mandate of the Commission I have proposed will be as broad as the Federal election process itself. Nothing will be excluded.

It will be authorized to examine the costs and financing of campaigns to look into the various ways in which the costs can be kept down and improper influence or influence-seeking through large campaign contributions can be ended. It can consider limitations on the total amounts candidates can spend, recognizing both the potential for abuse and the heavy burden that high campaign costs impose on both parties. It can look into the laws governing disclosure of campaign funds and how they are spent and how both those laws and their enforcement might be improved. It can review the tax laws as they relate to the financing of political campaigns. It can look into the question of possible public funding of campaigns.

Other areas for inquiry would include the elimination from our election campaigns of violence and the threat of violence, of intimidation, of frauds in the casting and counting of ballots, of the throwing about of misleading or malicious charges, of sabotage and espionage and other infringements on the rights of privacy, and of the whole range of improper campaign practices.

Beyond measures to curb these clearly evident abuses, the Commission will be authorized to examine such matters as the length and structure of our political campaigns, the purposes for which campaign funds are spent, the use and abuse of techniques such as television commercials, polling and computerized direct mail-and whatever else it may consider appropriate to a thorough-going campaign reform.

There is another matter of crucial importance to our election process, which I am also asking that the Commission consider. That is whether the Constitution should be amended to change the length of the terms of office of Members of the House, of the Senate, or of the President.

Many political scientists have suggested, for example, that the President should be elected for a single, nonrenewable 6-year term, instead of being eligible for two 4-year terms. The Commission could well consider the merits of this proposal.

Another change it might consider is whether Members of the House of Representatives should be elected for terms of 4 years instead of 2.

Personally, I have long favored the 4-year term for Members of the House, with half of the Members elected every 2 years. Members serving for 2-year terms have to spend 1 of every 2 years running for reelection, with the result that they serve 1 year and run for 1 year. This not only places an enormous burden on the Member himself, it also can work to the disadvantage of his constituents and of the country. By reducing the extraordinary campaign burden on its Members, I believe the House of Representatives could be made a more effective instrument of government.

The Commission will be directed to come up with a comprehensive set of legislative recommendations. It will also be directed to examine whether additional measures, such as voluntary agreements between candidates or party organizations, may be desirable to extend into those areas where legislation cannot appropriately reach.

Because time is of the essence, the resolution I have proposed would direct the Commission to file a public report no later than December 1 of this year. I believe that with hard work, the members of the Commission can complete their study even before then.

The Commission will have complete, independent authority to choose its own priorities among the matters to be considered, and as it proceeds, it will be encouraged to make interim recommendations for actions by the Congress without waiting for its final report in December.

One option I considered was for the Administration itself to prepare a set of proposed reforms and present them at this time. I rejected that course for two reasons:

First, a really comprehensive campaign reform, which I believe we need, must thread its way through enormous complexities, high sensitivities, entrenched interests, and a careful assessment of the possibilities of enactment by the Congress. This will take time. It can be done, but it cannot be done overnight.

Second, I feel it is essential that proposals for reform come not from one political party, not from one administration, not from one Congress, but from a bipartisan group of recognized experts, working in a nonpartisan atmosphere and broadly enough based to give their recommendations the full authority of manifest impartiality.

Let me stress that this new Commission is in no way competitive with the Senate's Ervin committee. The new Commission will draw on information being developed by the Ervin committee, and also on other studies of past campaign abuses. But its own central focus will be on the future-on how not only Presidential elections but also Congressional elections can most effectively be reformed.

Campaigns have changed drastically in the past century, and even in the past generation. Television, the-rise of professional campaign management firms, jet air travel, sophisticated polling techniques, skyrocketing costs, all have had a powerful impact on the way campaigns are conducted. As in so many other areas of our life, the sheer size of modern campaigns has contributed to the size of the problem and to the magnitude of the abuses.

There will be a temptation to attempt reforms piecemeal; this, I believe, would be a mistake. The reforms needed are sweeping rather than scattered, and each should be considered in relation to the others. We should think in terms of nothing less than a complete reexamination of our system of elections and campaign practices.

Scores, perhaps hundreds, of ideas for various election reforms have already been seriously and responsibly put forward. Many are now pending before the Congress. The principal need is to sort through these ideas, to develop such additional ideas as may be appropriate, and to design a comprehensive reform of the campaign system so that in its totality it will work, and work fairly and honestly.

It would be premature to predict what a Commission such as the one I propose might recommend. But these are a few examples of the kinds of reform it would certainly consider:

--strict limits on the size of individual campaign contributions;

--strict limits on the size of campaign contributions or the amount of campaign assistance that can be given by business, labor, or professional organizations;

--strict limits on cash contributions;

--tightened control over the activities of multiple organizations working for the same candidate;

--shorter election campaigns;

--new disclosure rules that would simplify not only the filing of reports but also the public discovery of what was important in those reports;

--reducing the cost of reaching the public, as, for example, by making free radio and television time available to candidates, or by revision of the equal time requirements that now restrict broadcasters in their campaign coverage;

--new Federal laws that would make illegal, practices that now are only unethical; and finally,

--the establishment of an independent Federal Elections Commission, with its own enforcement powers. It is important that these reforms stay within the spirit as well as the letter of the Constitution, that they not unduly infringe either the rights of the States or the First Amendment rights of individuals to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. It is important that they be fair, effective, realistic, and enforceable. Devising such a system of campaign reform will be difficult, but it is not impossible.

I am convinced a route can be charted that will avoid the obstacles, that wide-ranging reforms are possible and desirable, and that persons of the caliber of those who would be named to this Commission, given a reasonable period of time and also a firm deadline, can come up with a set of proposals that will work and that will help to restore the faith of the American people in the integrity of their political process.