November 23, 1970
Page 38532
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I share the concern of the entire country about the recent increase in the cost of political campaigning. The 1970 campaign illustrated both the success and the failure of the "media blitz," but the cost figures are equally high in both cases.
The costs of television and radio are but one part of campaign costs, and I fear that passage of this bill will slow action on broader campaign spending reform. This is why I opposed the bill when the Senate considered it earlier this session.
I shall vote to sustain the veto of this bill. I do this based on the assurances of the President in his letter to Senator SCOTT that the administration will support a broader campaign reform proposal in the 1971 session.
Reforms in campaign spending are needed, and I do not want my vote today to be interpreted as a vote against campaign spending reforms. I would hope that aspects of this bill will be included in a broader bill if the veto is sustained.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, the experience of political campaigns in the last several years has verified the tremendous financial costs which face any candidate for public office in the United States. As surveys and reports of campaign spending in the recent 1970 elections are made public, it is becoming increasingly clear that the major portion of campaign costs is for television and radio time and the services of consulting experts in the use of the electronic media for political purposes. When 50 to 75 percent of campaign expenditures is spent to set the phosphorous dots of TV screens dancing, there is an issue of immediate and specific national focus.
Pocketbook politics and packaged politicians raise a great number of important and vital questions for the future of representative government in this country. Six- and seven-figure campaigns for public office greatly restrict the accessibility of the political process to most segments of our society. The need to generate this amount of campaign financing greatly enhances the probability of special interest appeals and questionable attachments. Vast loopholes in the requirements to report campaign contributions and expenditures close off any possibility of a moderating influence from close public scrutiny. And a two-dimensional, 18-inch high candidate presented with all the candor of a laundry product or a dancing dog act does little to assure a concerned public of the relevance and responsiveness of the political process in this country.
In short, there is no longer any doubt about the need for comprehensive election reform. It is, therefore, encouraging to see the nonpartisan commitment of leaders in the Executive and Congress for broad election reform legislation in the 92d Congress. The future proposals and actions of the next 2 years in this area should receive a great deal of attention when they arrive.
As stated, these broad comprehensive reforms are still rhetorical concepts which may take legislative shape on a large scale in some presidential and congressional action in a tomorrow of a future Congress. Unfortunately, legislative tomorrows, tomorrows, and tomorrows also have a habit of creeping on and on in a similar petty pace of time.
Today, however, we can do more than grandly speak about our plans for future reform. We can act on one specific area of expanding abuse – political broadcasting. We each have one vote in our hand that can be cast to say "let us begin today to free our political processes from the financial clutches of the electronic middleman." This afternoon we can take an initial step to open up our political system and make political communication more of a kinetic process between a candidate and his constituency.
The political broadcasting bill which is presently before us makes a start at campaign and election reform by removing the equal opportunities provision of section 315 of the Communications Act so as to allow greater opportunity for debates in presidential elections. It also would provide for minimal charges for media time while limiting the total amount of moneys that could be devoted to radio and television in any primary or general election for major office.
There is no reason to delay initiating election reform any longer. The electorate has a right to expect a little more action in this area than a 30-second blurb on the evening news about the critical need for campaign spending limits.
Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey. Mr. President, today the Senate will demonstrate whether it is really committed to correcting some of the faults in our electoral system.
When we vote on overriding the President's veto of the campaign spending bill we will be telling the Nation whether we sincerely believe that the system needs reform.
We took the first, tentative step when we first passed this bill. Now, we are called upon to confirm our commitment.
Our vote today will indeed be historic.
If we vote to override we will be demonstrating to all those critics of our system of government that the system is responsive; that it can reform itself when the need arises.
But if we fail to override, we will cast a shadow of doubt over our commitment to the ideals we talk about.
We have just put behind us elections which clearly demonstrated the need for controls on campaign spending.
Across the Nation, from New York to California, millions upon millions of dollars were poured into the purchase of radio and television time so that candidates could air whatever message they felt would win them votes.
In many cases, these political commercials explained what a candidate stood for, what his record was, and what he proposed to do if elected.
But, in far too many instances, candidates used the air waves to try to broadcast innuendo, distortions of fact, and irresponsible charges.
Enactment of a law limiting radio and TV spending will not automatically end this despicable type of campaigning.
But, hopefully, if candidates know their broadcast advertising time is limited they will use it more wisely.
An enactment of this law will certainly put a stop to the disturbing trend toward attempts to buy elections.
Mr. President, I believe the recent elections showed that the American people have no wish to purchase their Government leaders like they purchase toothpaste or laundry soap.
In case after case voters refused to respond to sophisticated sales pitches or base fear tactics which bombarded them every time they turned on a radio or television.
And, in case after case, voters indicated they want to choose their representatives based on intelligent discussion of the real issues facing us.
In the face of this evidence, it would be wrong for us to allow multimillion dollar political advertising campaigns to continue dominating the air waves every election year.
When he vetoed this bill, the President said that placing a limit on radio and TV spending would not absolutely guarantee lower campaign budgets.
That is correct.
But, I think it would be a long, first step toward curbing irresponsible campaigning and excessive campaign spending.
It is not my purpose in these remarks to imply that the broadcast media do not have a vital role to play in our electoral process.
They certainly do have that role, and I think this bill would strengthen, rather than weaken it.
By desaturating the airwaves of political advertising, I would hope this bill would encourage increased presentation of the candidates and the issues via radio and TV news programs.
Broadcasters have shown they are capable of outstanding public service through responsible, balanced, and full coverage of election campaigns. Increases in this type of broadcasting would certainly be a welcome and constructive substitute for surplus political advertising.
In any case, Mr. President, there can be no question that the campaign spending bill before us today ought to be enacted. It provides a vital beginning down the road toward insuring responsible campaigning.
I unreservedly urge my colleagues to cast their votes today in favor of overriding the President's veto of this long overdue legislation.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I was a strong supporter of the legislation to limit television spending and institute other needed reforms in political use of the airways. As we consider the President's veto of that bill, I am all the more convinced that we must move to curb the dangerous power of money in our democratic process.
In meeting this urgent need, however, the Congress must make sure that the reforms we introduce are absolutely fair and effective. And those of us who support this legislation must recognize that restrictions on broadcasters alone are both discriminatory and piecemeal in dealing with the larger problems of campaign spending.
And so, Mr. President, we should be clear that our essential action now to reform broadcast spending is only the first step in a comprehensive program to control campaign expenditures of every kind. And we must complete these urgently needed reforms at the earliest moment in the next Congress.
I welcome the administration's pledge, therefore, to cooperate with the Congress in bringing about those reforms early next year.
That is the spirit in which I will cast my vote to override the President's veto. I do so looking forward to a truly bipartisan reform effort which will be fair to the broadcast industry as well as serving the public interest.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, what is the time situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Each side has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. PASTORE. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, much has been said, and very well said, with respect to this bill to limit campaign spending on broadcast media. This vote involves more than a particular bill on election reform. More is involved than just whether one medium is affected by this bill more than others. It involves more than whether we should draft broader measures affecting the totality of campaign spending – and I believe we should. And I hope that in due course we do.
What really is involved in this issue – and I hope this bill is but the first in a series of campaign spending reforms – is whether our Nation is to become a Nation governed of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.
Is public office to be accessible to those of lesser or moderate means, or is it to be the sole prerogative of those of inordinate and excessive personal wealth or those who are friendly with and accessible to those of inordinate means? That really is the basic issue before us in this veto override.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Time is being subtracted from each side.
Mr. PASTORE. No. The time is being taken by the other side. I cannot help it if they are not on the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. COOK. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, the American people – and I am sure a majority in Congress – want meaningful limits on the total amount that can be spent by or for a candidate in a campaign.
The basic, crucial question facing the Senate now is whether this bill represents a step forward or a step backward from that goal. I submit that because the public has been misled by much of the publicity focusing on this bill, a vote to override the President's veto and allow this ineffective bill to become law would be a step backward.
Yesterday's New York Times published a story reporting on a Gallup poll. The story begins:
The public is fed up with the conduct of political campaigns, and one of its chief complaints is soaring campaign spending, according to the Gallup poll.
Then it says:
Based on early returns of the survey, 8 of 10 Americans now favor a law that would put a limit on the total amount of money that can be spent for or by a candidate in his campaign for public office. The question asked by the Gallup poll people was this: "Would you favor or oppose a law which would put a limit on the total amount of money which can be spent for or by a candidate in his campaign?"
And 78 percent of the people said, "Yes."
I am not surprised that they said, "Yes."
Then the story goes on to report that today the Senate will be voting on a bill that will only limit – and ineffectively limit – how much could be spent for radio and television advertising.
Mr. President, enactment of this bill would only delude the American people. If the President's veto is overridden and this bill becomes law, many people will believe that reform has been achieved – when actually that would not be the case. This bill would put no limitation whatever on the total amount that can be spent. The sky will still be the limit. A candidate, or those working on his behalf, could still spend all the money he wants in direct mail, newspaper advertising, billboards, and in other ways.
If the President's veto is overridden, the pressure and the support of the public for meaningful and effective reform will be gone. I do not think it takes a great deal of wisdom to predict that if this bill were to become law, that would be the end of the effort to do anything about campaign spending reform.
I know that those who will vote to sustain the President are in a difficult position temporarily. But if we prevail, the pressure and the public support will still be there; indeed, it may increase and we can go forward to achieve meaningful and effective reform which will place a limit on the total that can be spent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, earlier this year the Senate approved the political broadcasting bill by a vote of 58 to 27; and the House passed said bill 272 to 97.
This legislation, vetoed by the President, seeks to place a limit on television and radio campaign spending by candidates for the offices of President, Senator, Congressman, Governor, and Lieutenant Governor in both general elections and primaries.
It also places a limit on the amount that a radio or television facility can charge a legally qualified candidate for public office at the station's lowest unit rate charged for commercial time.
The third feature of this political broadcasting bill is the provision to repeal the equal time provision of the Communications Act so that broadcasters could make time available for debates of the issues by the major candidates for the office of President and Vice President.
No one claims that this bill is a panacea for all problems that need to be dealt with in overhauling our electoral process. No one piece of legislation is ever likely to be designed to make all needed reforms.
Enacting this bill into law, however, will be an important step toward reducing excessive spending on electronic media. By putting a lid now on television and radio campaign expenditures, we will have at least recognized the importance of taking this and further action that is needed to do our best to assure that men and women will be selected for public office more on the basis of their merits, instead of on their means or ability to obtain extraordinarily large sums of money with which to conduct their campaigns.
It is for these reasons I will vote to override the veto of the bill by the President.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on October 12, President Nixon vetoed and returned to the Congress the Campaign Broadcast Reform Act – the first major election reform measure passed by the Congress in 45 years.
This is an act which places a measure of control on the growing excesses in the use of television in political campaigns. It is an act which found overwhelming bipartisan support in the Congress. Sixty Senators and 247 Members of the House, members of both parties, voted for the measure on final passage.
The act attracted support of this kind because it was designed to correct an ill in our political life which threatens both parties – which in fact threatens our basic system of government.
I refer, Mr. President, to the accelerating costs of political campaigning, which doubled between 1952 and 1968, and increased by 50 percent between the 964 and 1968 presidential elections.
The single item in campaign budgets most responsible for this increase has been television.
Expenditures for television rose by 70 percent between the 1964 and 1968 elections. The reports from the 1970 election will show that these expenditures climbed even higher.
Why is the steadily increasing cost of seeking political office cause for concern?
Because, unless we do something soon, we will make it increasingly difficult for candidates to seek political office without becoming overly indebted to a small number of large contributors.
Because, unless we act to encourage constructive use of television and radio, it will become increasingly more difficult for the people to choose elected officials on the basis of the positions they take and the programs they support, rather than on the basis of the amount of television time they can buy.
To be sure, the Campaign Broadcast Reform Act does not cure all the abuses in political campaigning. And I agree with the Senate minority leader that comprehensive reform of the campaign laws should be high on the agenda in the next session of Congress. But the promise to do something next year is no excuse for rejecting legislation which promises to bring under control the greatest single cause of rising costs in election campaigning.
Mr. President, it is misleading to state flatly that this act will favor the incumbent. True, the incumbent frequently has the advantage of public exposure over his challenger, and to the extent that the act would prevent a challenger from becoming known, it may aid the incumbent.
However, in many cases, the incumbent has greater resources at his command. In these cases, the limit which the act places on broadcast media expenditures will reduce the burden which the challenger is forced to meet.
In any event, a clear-cut line cannot be drawn.
And it should not be.
Our purpose in enacting this legislation is not to favor one party over another, nor an incumbent over a challenger. Our purpose is to place a limit on the extraordinary amount which is now spent on media advertising. This is what we must do, if we are to provide some degree of equal opportunity for presenting different points of view during political campaigns.
Finally, the legislation before us does not discriminate unfairly against the broadcast media.
Expenses for television and radio advertising are by far the greatest costs of political campaigning. We must bring these costs under control if we are serious about stopping the rapid increase in overall campaign spending.
Moreover, Mr. President, the airwaves belong to the public. Broadcasters are licensed to use the airwaves in the interests of the public.
The public interest demands that each candidate have a fair opportunity to present his case to his constituency. But the public interest is abused when financial resources alone determine the relative access of opposing candidates to use the airwaves.
Mr. President, we confront the question whether the Congress will act to preserve political opportunity in America; or whether we will allow the electoral process to be distorted, perhaps even destroyed, by uncontrolled campaign spending.
We can vote to insure the right of every citizen to a balanced presentation of views; or we can deliver up that right to those few with access to vast financial resources who may seek to manipulate decisionmaking to their own ends.
We can vote to insure that honest and capable men continue to be elected to office; or we can make the measure of the elected official that he be either personally wealthy, or willing to surrender his independent judgment to the will of those who paid for his campaign.
We are a nation that votes with ballots, not with dollar bills.
And so I will vote to override the President's veto of this act and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I know of no single influence more destructive to that ideal of representative government to which we all aspire than the difficulties and problems of financing political campaigns. The problem becomes steadily more critical.
Inflation is rampant everywhere. Anyone involved in this year's election campaign knows, however, that in no area have costs increased faster than the cost of running for public office.
Never before have candidates spent so much – nor have they had to spend so much – to be elected. It is estimated that a $100 million was spent on the campaigns for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives this year. Many additional tens of millions were spent on Governors' races and on the contests for other State offices.
In New York State some $10 million was spent on the Governor's contest alone, and some $6 million more for the U.S. Senate race.
The cost of seeking public office and the problems created thereby, know no partisan boundaries.
It affects the candidates of all parties and all candidates would prefer to limit their need for funds.
All candidates would prefer to limit fund raising to voluntary contributions from a large number of small contributors. All find, however, that the vast majority of such heavy campaign needs can be met only through tapping a smaller number of large contributors.
As chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee these past 2 years, I have personally witnessed the difficulty of the underfinanced candidate as well as the problems which are created by the need to raise a large campaign war chest. I believe I speak from experience.
I would certainly not contend that the bill before us is perfect. Much more needs to be done.
But it is a beginning and an important beginning. Almost half of the money spent this year went to purchase broadcast time. Television is the single most expensive item in any campaign budget.
It is the most rapidly increasing cost of political campaigning. If we are ever going to make the start, this is the place to do it – and this is the time.
I do not believe that the great majority of the Members of Congress of both parties who supported this bill when it first passed the Senate and who supported it again in the form of a conference report will now turn their backs to their own experience and credit the White House
aids who put together a veto message with greater perceptivity than they. Nor should they.
Political office must not become the exclusive preserve of the wealthy. Unless we act now we will be creating in this country an aristocracy – an aristocracy contrary to the concept of – and to our entire history of – elective office as a public trust. If we fail to act on this measure, elective office will be available only to the rich or to those few who have the backing of – and are therefore controlled by – wealthy and powerful interests.
This measure is not the whole answer but I am confident it will significantly reduce the need for funds. It will improve the opportunity for men and women of modest means to run for public office and to win elections.
Frankly, the need for action is urgent. Expenditures in many States ran as high as $7 for every vote cast in this recent election. This bill limits broadcast expenditures to 7 cents for each candidate for national office and each candidate for Governor per vote cast.
The temptation for a political party of means, or for a wealthy candidate, to "buy" an election is undoubtedly great. It is an advantage some may not wish to forego. But I think their sense of public responsibility and their interest in good government will move many to join with us. I hail those who have indicated their willingness to place the public interest and the political health of our Nation ahead of any narrow partisan gain which may be achieved by supporting the veto of this measure. I urge others to do so.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, today the Senate must take a first step toward campaign reform. The President's veto of the campaign broadcast reform should be overridden. Then we may properly proceed to the other reforms which are being proposed.
As one who has long advocated reform of the campaign process, I have learned how hard it is to move reform legislation forward. The reform problem is complex, and delay is an all too tempting alternative to the hard work action requires.
The bill we are considering is the end result of 3 years of work by dozens of Senators, Congressmen, staff assistants, and outside groups. It has been changed many times to meet objections, to clarify language, and to improve enforceability. This hard work should not be put aside.
Experience says that if a reform bill is introduced in the next Congress, it will not become law until after the 1972 elections. We will need 2 years to solve all the problems in a major reform package.
The impending elections would threaten to make the package a political football. There is an equally great danger we would get nothing.
We are told this bill penalizes broadcasters. It does not. They already keep the records which will provide the basis for enforcing this law, and which make this approach effective.
Broadcasting revenue from the bill will not decrease appreciably because the 7 cent limit is very close to present actual spending levels in most campaigns. It will mean a limit to the further growth of the use of television by candidates. This is reasonable regulation which protects the public.
We must not forget that the public interest comes before the broadcaster's right to unlimited profits from a free license to broadcast on the public's airwaves.
We are told the bill is too narrow. It was reported by the Commerce Committee which has jurisdiction over broadcasting. This bill represents a full and proper exercise of the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction. Broader reform legislation will have to come from the Rules Committee and it is the Rules Committee to which we will turn when this bill is law.
Some have said that limiting purchases of television time limits free speech. It does not.
Congress is not telling a candidate what to say. It is telling him that his message must not cost more than a specified sum to deliver over the air. The choice of when and where to deliver the message is the candidate's.
The argument is made that the imposition of a radio-TV limit favors the incumbent over the seeker of a political office. I think this argument is correct, but it is overshadowed by the discrimination that results from unlimited TV and radio expenditures, which give the wealthy overwhelming advantage over the less affluent, whether incumbent or non-incumbent.
This bill does limit the ability of large contributors to buy elections – an ability which must be severely limited and which does not enjoy constitutional protection.
The question of whether the Senate will override the President's veto is a close one. If it does, credit for reform will go to the independent and courageous Republicans who have worked to override the veto. They are putting country above party, public need above narrow personal interest and their own sense of what is right above the demand of the President.
It is the genius of our political system that the Senate is independent and can act independently. I hope that independent judgment will be manifest in the vote to override the President's veto.
Mr. BAYH. Today we decide whether to override the President's veto of S. 3637, the campaign spending bill. I supported that bill when it was first before the Senate. I did so because I thought it was a good bill, a vital piece of legislation designed to keep politics from becoming the exclusive domain of the very rich. I will vote to override the veto.
I believe that the President's veto is based on the narrowest and most shortsighted partisan political arithmetic. It is no secret that the Republican Party has a very substantial surplus, while the Democratic Party has a deficit of over $9 million. It is no secret – indeed it is available from the Clerk of the House of Representatives – that the Republicans in 1970 raised and spent $13 million more than the Democrats. Nor is it a secret that the President might prefer not to debate his opponent in the 1972 election. But it is deplorable that these personal, partisan, and wholly political considerations should shape the course of our Nation's decision making.
Of course, the President has explained his partisan veto. But his explanation is the most flimsy and transparent cover for a selfish, party-oriented decision. He said that he thought the bill's purpose was "highly laudable," but that he vetoed it because it only limits spending on the broadcast media and therefore "falls short" of perfection. No one has ever said that this bill was perfect. It is not. No bill dealing with such a complex problem could be perfect. And the President knows that full well. But to say that the bill "plugs only one hole in a sieve" ignores the realities of politics today. Anyone as active as the President has been in partisan politics knows that TV and radio costs are easily the largest single item of campaign expense. And these costs are steadily absorbing more and more of the average campaign budget: while overall campaign expenditures have doubled in the past 10 years, the cost of political television has increased by 900 percent. They also know that TV and radio also have the greatest potential for abuse by candidates with more money than ability. Given these facts it seems only logical to me that the first reform bill should deal with the area of greatest cost and greatest danger of abuse. I simply cannot accept the President's explanation of the reasons for his veto. The President did not veto the bill because it does not go far enough, but because it goes too far, because it is too effective in focusing campaigns on the issues instead of the artfully unrealistic images created by highly paid television producers.
The President says that the monetary limits are too restrictive. But we know the limits are both fair and workable; they were voluntarily – and successfully – used by candidates in several recent contests. The President says that this bill would give an "unfair advantage" to the incumbents.
Passing the bill would not aid incumbents over challengers any more than is presently the case – all candidates would be subject to the same reasonable limitations on broadcast expenditures. But the veto would benefit one prominent incumbent, the President. By vetoing the bill the President is attempting to kill a measure which would, for the first time in a decade, have made possible debate between the incumbent President and his opponent in the next election. If the President does not want to debate, let him say so directly. But he should not be able to avoid debate while claiming that he wants to avoid giving the "officeholder an extra advantage over the challenger.”
The President also said he vetoed the bill because the "people deserve to know more, not less, about the candidates and where they stand." Of course the President is right in saying that the people have a right to know about the candidates so they can make an informed choice. But the public does not learn much – if anything – about the candidates or the issues when those with ample financial resources are able to saturate the airwaves with sophisticated softsell commercials.
Overexposure to such commercials does not educate the public. At best, it only bores the public.
At worst, it attempts to dupe the public. It can make the means to buy a high-priced image maker – instead of the candidate's stand on the issues – the critical ingredient in an election.
This is a very good bill. It would limit the money each candidate in Presidential, senatorial, congressional, and gubernatorial races could spend on radio and TV. Each candidate would be limited to 7 cents per vote to $20,000, whichever is greater, in the general election, and half that amount in the primary. That alone would have eliminated $30 million of expenses from this year's campaigns. It would have cut each party's expenditures in the last Presidential election to $5.1 million, half of what the Republicans spent in that election. The bill would also lower costs by requiring broadcasters to charge their lowest regular rates for political broadcasts. Finally, the bill would suspend the equal time provisions of the Communications Act, which have served as a bar to debates between the leading Presidential candidates since 1960.
To me these are the features of an effective first attempt to deal with a very real threat to our electoral process. Of course, I welcome any and all constructive suggestion for strengthening this bill, and I will support such proposals when they are made. I would support legislation defining limits on all campaign spending, along with meaningful reporting and enforcement. I would strongly support an effective and comprehensive bill. But the President has failed to offer such an alternative. In the meantime, we cannot afford to let campaign spending remain completely unchecked.
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, the President's veto message which accompanied his rejection of the campaign spending bill was correct and accurate in all respects as well as highly persuasive. I agree with every point he makes. The only question that arises is the conclusion to be drawn from the facts upon which we agree.
We come back, in essence, to the old issue of whether we throw the baby out with the bath water.
While everyone agrees that the process of cleansing our electoral system is going to take more than one rinse, I believe we should not abandon everything done and start over, but should work on the basis of the first step already taken.
In addition to the points made by the President himself, I would point out that the vetoed bill is too protective and discourages political discrimination and judgment. In a democratic society the vote should be the greatest deterrent for those who wish to buy their way into office. Let the public make its judgment on what it sees, not on what it is prevented from seeing.
But after all this is said it is still a beginning. For a number of years, and specifically during the 1968 senatorial election, I have advocated campaign reform. Progress has been slow, new starts are difficult and risky.
It is my judgment that placing the vetoed bill on the books will give a greater, and not a lesser, incentive to more meaningful reform. Whatever happens to this bill, I shall be glad to join President Nixon, Senator SCOTT, and every other interested person in pursuing this goal. With the future uncertain, we had better, however, seize this first small beginning that has come within our grasp after so many years of striving.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, what is the time situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, the moment of decision has come.
I want it clearly understood that what we are dealing with today was not started by the senior Senator from Rhode Island. On September 10, 1969, a bill was introduced in the Senate, sponsored by 34 Senators, to give a discount to Members who were running for Congress.
Among the sponsors was the minority leader, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCOTT).
We have heard talk this afternoon that we have not held hearings. We held hearings after hearings. We invited everyone to come before our committee. Everyone was welcome to come. And I never heard in all that time a single word about an all-inclusive law.
I, too, am for an ail-inclusive law. But we have been speaking about that for the last 20 years that I have been in the Senate, and I have not seen one yet.
As to the argument that if this law is passed up, if the veto is upheld we will get a good law, we can forget it. If anyone wants a good, all-inclusive law, bring it out in its good time – hold hearings and pass it. Then after that all-inclusive law is passed, repeal this law actually before us here and now. But do not refuse to take this giant step today.
The biggest item of election spending is for radio and television, and it has become a scandal. When we read in the newspapers that it takes a half million dollars in a small State to pay for the radio and television bill, we are in on the verge of scandal. If we want to avoid that state of scandal and bring it to an end, then vote to override the President's veto this afternoon.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CRANSTON). All time has now expired. The question is: Shall the bill pass, the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding?
The Constitution requires that this vote shall be determined by yeas and nays, as provided in article I, section 7, part 2.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan will state it.
Mr. GRIFFIN. May I ask, if a Senator wishes to vote to sustain the President's veto, then he would vote "nay", is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A vote of "yea" would override the veto.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted – yeas 58, nays 34, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CRANSTON). On this vote the yeas are 58 and the nays are 34. Two-thirds of the Senators present and voting not having voted in the affirmative, on reconsideration, the bill fails of passage.