edibriQ
3
'If
jonet
white
' 4 V"
Electoral ethics
The electoral process which sends delegates to the
two major party conventions to eventually choose the
parties presidential candidates is simple.
Any number of delegate candidates file their
names with the name of the presidential candidate of
their choice and pay a filing fee. The persons
receiving the largest number of votes in their
congressional district get to attend the convention
and ballot for the candidate of their choice.
Apparently some persons in the First
Congressional District were not satisfied with their
own candidate's ability to gain the election of
delegates pledged to Hubert Humphrey. Instead of
intensifying their own campaign effort, they have
sought persons to file for the delegate spots
committed to Humphrey's closest rival-George
McGovern.
The process by which these persons have sought to
diffuse McGovern support in favor of possible
Humphrey support may have been quite legal. The
fact remains, though, that a serious question of
electoral ethics is involved. Conflicting stories are
now available from those persons involved.
The story on page one of today's Daily Nebraskan '
points out an apparent attempt' by Humphrey
supporters to diffuse the voting power that may have
elected more McGovern delegates than Humphrey
delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
When the electoral process becomes suspect, it
remains hard if not impossible to have faith in the
entire governmental instutitution.
Barry Pilger
Whoever said "you can't have your cake and eat it too was
not witness to the political sleights of band that are daily fare
in 1972.
Legislators frequently have their cake and eat it too-by
acting out of selfish interests but maintaining a facade of
propriety and respectability. How do they do it? They give
socially-edifying labels to espoused policies, and then write as
much effectiveness or ineffectiveness into legislation as is
personally palatable. Loopholes in bills are not entirely due to
oversight. "
Ironically, a recent bill intended to remedy the perennial
ineffectiveness of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 is
itself laced with less conspicuous loopholes. The bill is the
Federal Election Campaign Act, effective April 7, which
requires congressional, vice-presidential and presidential
candidates to report all campaign contributions twice
monthly.
After die bill passed, candidates end parties hastily
collected as many contributions as possible before April 7.
Newspapers reported Nixon's chief fund-raiser had urged
Republican contributors to beat the deadline before the law
became effective, according to the Congressional Quarterly.
Because the bill requires that every contribution be listed,
but does not specify a meaningful format, Congressmen may
attempt to obscure information with an unnecessary number
of entries and figure breakdowns. Fred Wertheimer, head of
the campaign finance division at Common Cause, has said,
'There is a good chance that candidates especially House
candidates-will try to render the law ineffective by
information overkill. They could choke it with so much paper
and figures that the press could never decipher it until long
after the election."
Some provisions of the bill are loosely drawn, as is apparent
on examination of Carl Curtis campaign contributions report.
Between April 17 and 22, Curtis reports no contributions. The
form is punctuated by a typewritten comment at the bottom
of the page: "All funds are handled by committees. Any
tender of money or checks to me were turned over to an
appropriate committee. ' I have no receipts and no
expenditures.
A campaign contributor can write a check- to one of four
campaign committees, earmark it for a specific candidate, but
never be linked to the candidate. The donor's name would
appear only on the campaign committee's report.
Curtis avoided having to list most major contributors and
their donations by raising funds at a dinner, well in advance of
the April 7 cut-off date. The SSO-a-plate dinner raked in about
$89,000 in clear profit, which is the balance entered on die
campaign contribution reports as of April 7. Only two
contributors are named in the April 7-April 17 report.
Although these procedures are legal, they are intentional
measures to conceal the facts and so are suspect. Such actions
are in marked contrast to the four presidential candidates who
revealed all campaign contributions and contributors.
There are at least three other obvious loopholes in (he law.
Campaign committees are not covered by it unless they handle
$1,C00 or more in contributions. Under this provision, a
number of $999 committees can be formed and operate
without making reports.
Although candidates and their families are prohibited from
making contributions over a certain amount, candidates can
give cash gifts to acquaintances. These can be returned as
donations.
It is not required that gifts of currency be reported -the
most obvious loophole is a donation of this kind, known to
candidate and contributor only.
rfe the weaknesses racstioaed, the Federal ftnxxngn
Election Act is relatively well-designed. If provisions were
added to cover the loopholes cited, the cost of enforcement
.W u the current estimate of $3 million annually. It is
unhkely that even then all the escapes would be sealed .
Clearly what is needed b candidates willing to disclose
campaign contributors and willing to finance their campaigns
without questionable procedures. F
Ti,Jhhffitinmed onlv by vigilant and questioning public.
Tr.50rV- "trve reporters and citkens'dvocatS
are not sufficient. The only irreversible political initiative is
that of a conscientious majority. If laws areto operate as they
are intended to, nothing less is required
PAGE 4
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 1972