Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-05-31
Continued From First Page


Purtell filed separate views dis
agreeing with some of the COM
mittee's major proposals for elec-
ton reforms. They questioned
the removal Of ceilings on presi-
dental and vice presidential
campaign expenditures. the in
crease on congressional races
and the proposed limit on indi-
vidual contributions.
The present law imposes a So
million limit on contributions
that may be received and ex-
pended by a political committee
during a calendar year. Noting
this, the committee added:
There is actually no genuine
limitation since there is no bar
to the formation of any number
Of additional committees de-
sired, each one of which would
be competent to receive and
expend SO million in any
calendar year. The committee
believes that a realistic approach
requires that the fixation of any
limitation in presidential con-
tests should be removed"
Ask Realistic Limits
On the other hand, the three
dissenting Senators said:
I'VE hold that sound consider
atoms Of public policy require
the enactment of realistic and
enforceable limitations upon both
campaign expenditures and cam
paign contributions. The bill
recommended in the report does
not meet this standard"
The committee said there was
considerable sentiment" for the
removal of ceilings on senatorial
contests, but that it was not pre-
pared to recommend this step at
this time.
1T is the feeling Of the COM
mittee that until public senti-
ment becomes crystallized in
favor Of the removal of limita-
tons in senatorial contests" the
report said, "a limitation should
be imposed based upon the popu-
lation OF each State; that the
limitation on a senatorial candi-
dates expenditures be an amount
equal to the amount obtained by
multiplying 10 cents by the total
population Of the State IN ques-
ton at the last decennial census"
Similar House Formula
The same formula would be
applied to elections for Repre-
sentative-at-large. On candidates
for Representative. generally, the
formula would be applied on a
district rather than a State basis.
At present the limit is the
amount obtained by multiplying
3 cents by the number Of
votes cast in the last general
election for the office, with a
ceiling Of $4,000 for Senate
candidates and $1,000 for House
candidates.
Would Exempt Committees
The committees proposal
would exempt expenditures by a
State central committee or a
regular county or local COM
mittee on the amounts allowed
a candidate.
The majority said these
groups invariably present and
support multiple candidates and
1t would not be feasible to allo-
cate their expenditures among
individual candidates.
Senator Gore. Kennedy and
Purtell. in their dissenting view.
said the committees proposed
bill would Impose no effective
expenditure ceilings on cam
paigns for the United States
Senate and House of Represent
atives" and added:
Although the bill purports to
establish ceilings on expenditures
In congressional and senatorial
campaigns, 1t fails in this pur-
pose by providing an absolute
exemption for expenditures made
by all regular State and local
committees Of political parties.
LOophOle Charged
THUS virtually unlimited
amounts may be expended by
State or local committees on &C.
half Of a particular candidate,
thereby effectively multiplying ef-
forts to control expenditures in
individual congressional or sena-
torial campaigns. Instead Of i'm
proving present law. this would
provide a legal loophole OF more
immense proportions than those
contained in the existing and
hopelessly inadequate Corrupt
Practices Act which 1t is our
duty to correct"
The three Senators also called
the $4,000 limitation on indl-
vidual contributions almost
equally ineffective" They called
this a constructive step for
ward" but insisted the amount