April 1983

Volume XIX, No.2 Price 51.50

Washington's Fifth Estate: Special Interest IIIIII Lobbies RIPON fOR~M

Editor's Column Editors Col umn 2 Proliles and Perspectives: l The press's presence ill Washington has often beell A Convusation with Bilt Frenzel A Connnalion with reJerred to as the "Fourth Estate." But today there C harln Mathias 6 seems to be a "Fifth Estate" developing: special

Ktepinll Track of Special Intern lS 8 interest groups. Much auention, in Jact, has been Jocused on a particularly important aspect oJspecial Republiu n Party Rules: 16 illterest groups: political action committees. Beuer The Mandate for Change: J osi.h Ln Auspill. known as PACs, their influence in Wa shington and on the campaign trail has created considerable The Chairman's Corner: 21 PAC, Amcrkana: Jim Lnch contro l'ersy. To determine theaclllal influence had by PA Cs, as 41 9 New Jel'$cy Avenue well as to provide a thorough review oJthe electoral system. this edition oj Ripon Forum hears Jrom a number oj moderate Republicans who ha\'e been deeply illl10lved with this issue. This includes Senator Charles Mathias, Represemati\.'e Bill Frenzel and Ripon chairmallJim Leach. each oJwhom providesa different perspectil'e. In addition, a Jormer editor oj this magazine and an expert in Republican Party rules. Lee A II spitz, presents a comprehensive critique oj (h e GOP's nominating structure, cal/ing Jor immediate reJorm. Plus. a chart is included to RIPON fORIJM demonstrale the voting patterns produced by special EditOr: Witllam P. McKenzie interest groups, the bottom line oj which is that the Editorial Board: Daniel Swllli!'lger Sandra Thompson Fijih Estate. while lacking final COllfrol. does wield At/reo W. Tate an enormous alllOlJll( ojpower. Art Director. Elizabeth Lee (The Graphic Tuna) Photographers: Denla Finnin Cartoonist: George BrawlSler - Bill McKenzie THE RIPON FORUM (ISSN 0035-5528) is published bi-monthty in 1983.

In the publication. the Society hopes 10 provide a forum for fresh ideas, well researched proposals. and a ,pint 01 creative criticism and Innovation In the Republican Party. Manuscripts and photographs are solicited, but do not representlhe views oI lne Society unless so stated.

Contents are copyrighted 1983 by the Ripo<'! Society, Inc.. 4t9 New Want to subscribe to the RIPON FORUM? Or Jef3ey Avenue, 5.E., Washington. D.C. 20003. to give a friend a gift subscription to the voice of moderate Republicanism? If so, send your second clasa postage and fees paid at Washington, D.C. and additional mailing offices. name, address and $25 (which includes a national membership) to: Subscription rates: $25 per year. $ 17.50 lor students. servicemen, Peace Corps, Vista and other votunteers. OviIf3eas, add 56. Please allow liva weeks for addresa changes. THE RIPON SOCIETY 419 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. The Ripon Soclety. lnc...Frederic R. Kellogg. president, is a Republican research and policy organization whose membaf3 are business, academic. Washington, D.C. 20003 and protesslonal men and women. Il ls headquartered in Washington. D.C .• with Natlon"l Assocl,,'e membef3 throughout Ihe United Stales. The Society Is supported by chapter dues. individual contributions. and revenues from ilS publications and conlract wort.

2 RIPON FORUM Profiles and Perspectives

M oderate Republicans for some time have been on parties. As long as the contributors contribute voluntarily, J the forefront of reforming the campaign system. Dating don't see that it makes any difference who decides how it is back to 1974, when Re publicans like John Anderson were spent. instrumental in developing campaign finance legis lation, Ripon Forum. Along these same lines, do you think GOP moderates have concerned themselves with devising that Washington's lobbyist-lawyers, as one observer re­ an open, accountable election system. cently commented, set the national agenda? Two moderates who have been especially involved in th is Frenzel. The lobbyist-lawyers probably have always are Representative Bill Frenzel, R-Minn., and Senator been involved in trying to set the national agenda. Today Charles McC. Mathias, R-Md. Interviewed by Forum they will hold a fundraiser for Senator Mondale, or for that editor Bill McKenzie for this installment or " Profiles and matter anyone else runni ng for election, and then invite a lot Perspectives," F renzel, the ranking minority member on ofPACs. But in the old days they would have done it much the House Admin istration Committee, and Mathias, the more quietly, with bigger checks and probably smaller chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules and Admini­ numbers of people. Under the rules now, all those actions stration. offer two distinctively different views on a subject are disclosed. Everybody knows who the players are, which which promises to be of considerable interest this legislative seems to me a far better system. session. Ripon Forum. Docs their role lead toinefficientlegisia­ tion? For example, the safe-harbor leasing provision in the 1982 tax bill was the product of in tense lobbying efforts. But today there seems to be a growing consensus in Washington that this must be rescinded. Frenzel. Sure. I think the lobbyist-lawyers have always done that to us. J ust as they laid on us the Appalachian programs and Great Society programs, they are always trying to muscle in to get a dam hearing here or a defense facility there. But those people have always been with us. A Conversation The good thing is that under the election law political activities and contributions are now revealed, and every­ with Bill Frenzel body knows where everybody else is. Ripon Forum. You mentioned during the debate over Rf'preSf'nloli"e Bill Frf'llul Obey-Railsback, the 1979 legislation which attempted to limit candidates to $70,000 in PAC receipts during a two­ Ripon Forum. In 1979 you wrote that political action year election cycle, that labor would be left with "enormous committees (PACs) have been the " greatest. in facl. the legal advantages to spend involuntary contributions of its only institution in our society that has encouraged and members." Iflaborwas restricted, would you be more li kely expanded poli tical participation by the public." Could you to favor restricting PACs? please elaborate upon this? Frenzel. I guess I'm not sure why labor should be Frenzel. In poli tics there is only one source of contribu­ restricted. If a group of people wish to get together and tion and that is from individuals. PACs provide a reference espouse certain philosophies, they should have a chance to point for individuals and their contributions. In fact. in the elect the people they perceive as their friends. I guess I also hearings held on PACs by the House Administration find it very hard to understand why people who are Committee, we in variably fou nd that most PAC cont r i ~ supposed to believe in representative government and are butors are people who have never contributed to a political supposed to reject elitist concepts of telling others how to party, candidate, issue or campaign. W hat we have is a new live are the very ones who want to restrict political action. place for people to begin or to find an ingress into the To say to the doctor who contributes to AMPAC (the poli tical process. We would hope that some would progress American Medical Political Action Committee) or to the into political parties or into actual campaigns. But at least ,un ion member who contributes to the Teamsters that he'll this gives them a means of gelling in . PACs also have have to find a better way to participate smacks ofexclusivity. provided a way for people who might not have been Ripon Forum. If li miting PAC contributions would interested in some of the social issues both parties were mean wealthy candidates have an electoral advantage, as selling, but who, as a member of a union, corporation or some contend, then isn't the logical alternative a form of association, were more interested in their economic condi­ public financing for congressional campaigns? tion. T his has been an enormous force for good and has Frenzel. No. I wouldn't think so. F irst, you have to broadened the political base in the United States. figure out what's wrong. Ifthe system isn't broke. then don't Ripon Forum. T he argument has been made, though, fix it. Certainly there wou ld be a problem if wealthy that while PAC contributions to candidates in 1982 totalled individuals were able to spend as much money as they $87 million, up from $23 million just six years ago, wou ld like to buy an election. That, however, is a question PAC decision-making is not democratically controlled. that has to be taken up with the Supreme Court. And I am Rather, it is controlled centrally by re presenlalives here in not wholly persuaded that going toa partial system ofpublic Washington. fi nancing would induce the Supreme Court to believe that a Frenzel. Well so what? So are contributions to political person has less rights about promoting his candidacy unde r APRtL 1983 3 that system than he has under the presem one. refonns, but the House probably doesn't want the same Second, I believe that public financing is a far worse ones. Maybe the president wants something else. I think it's situation than individuals being able to spend a lot of going to be extraordinarily difficult to put together any money. At least you can occasionally defeat a wealthy legislation. A public financing bill may pass the House, but candidate. ISenatorl David Durenberger, R· Minn., did so it is extremely unlikely that it will be enacted into law. in Minnesota, thanks to a lot of PAC contributions. I'm not Ripon Forum. With a more refonn minded, Oem., so sure that you would ever upset the privileged spender cratically·controlled House, do you think a measure could under a public financing scheme. pass that chamber but break down in the GOP-controlled Ripon Fo rum. You mentioned that you have to look for Senate? a way to fix the system. Frenzel. It's hard to describe what would go. For F renzel. If you see a break. example, the one thing that the Senate wants is larger Ripon Forum. Do you see a break? individual contributions. The House doesn·t need these: F renzel. No. I really don't. I am always amazed that my we're not a bit sympathetic to that. Anotherexample is that friends find PACs such a pernicious influence. I rather feel RepUblicans want parties to be able to raise and spend they're a pretty good influence. I find that all of those more. But Democrats don't; they can't raise more money argumems seem to be made principally as an attempt to than Republicans. On the OIher hand, they would likc to bring about using the taxpayers' money to finance elections. limit PACs because they see them as a losing battlc. I just basically and categorically reject that as a useful Although they now get more money out of PACs than do element in our dcmocracy. I have trouble fo llowing the Republicans because of un ion support, Democrats see arguments of people who try to build these great straw men unions being outstripped by the combination of other of corruption. Find me one person that's corrupt. and I'll be PACs; they would just as soon limit them. Republicans. glad to deal with that dilemma. however, probably wouldn't. The problem is that they have gotten it backwards. The I guess I wou ld see this session as a chance for plain and folks who are nervous about corruption believe that a fancy demagoguery. Fine people will be standing up saying person votes a cenain way because somebody gives to his that this system is corrupt and that the only way we can campaign. I believe just the opposite. People give to a solve it is thi s way. But I don't see many bills being passed, certain campaign because they are basically assured that not at least until the presidential election cycle is over. the candidate is going to vote a certain way. My friends on the Democratic side do not vote organized labor because organized labor gives them some money. Organized labor gives them money because they know how they're going to vote. "This year we don't have anything to rally Ripon Fo rum. Some make the argument. however. that around. The Senate wants some reforms, campaign expenditures bu y access. Is this true? but the House probahly doesn't want the F renzel. First show me the congressman that denies same ones. It's going to he very difJicullto access to any constituent or person with a legitimate claim on his time. I haven·t heard anyone tell me that he locks put together any legislation . .. people out of his office. But some of my Republican friends do feel that they have to contribute to a few leading Democrats so that they will have "access." They're outoftheirgourds. though. T here is nothing that a Democrat would rather see than a fancy Ripon Forum. What about placing li mits on campaign businessman. just like we Republicans would break our money raised by candidates who seemingly do not need the neck to have labor people come into our office. funds for ree lection? For example, Dan Rostenkowski, 0- Ripo n Fo rum. Do you think it gives priority in access? Jl l., received $445,000 in J 982 PAC contributions but won Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass .. said recently that while his with 84% of the vote. 24 members of Congress faced no door is open to anyone. he knows that if a contributor calls. general election opponent or had either a minor or no he would most likely return that call first. primary opponent, yet received at least $50,000 in PAC Frenzel. Would the Republic fail if you returned the contributions. Do you see any connicts of interest? other guy's call second? I just see that as being the strangest F renzel. I really don't. It seems to me that these are the argument in history. I am just so overwhelmed by this issue people who would be out seeking campaign funds whether that I have my belly fu ll of it. We've got 40% oftheeligible they were from PACs or from someone else. T hey fee l voters turning out in elections. our parties have no more comfortable with that great big war chest. volumeers. there's no enthusiasm for election participation, But let's not tal k about some of my colleagues. I'll talk and here are a bunch of people trying to circle the wagons, about myself. I now have $IOO,OOO·plus in the bank. T hat bui lding tighter fences so we can do less. has an effect on peoples' interest in running against me in Ripon Forum. Those tighter fences certainly seem to primaries. It's probably my best political weapon. be being built during this particular legislative session. It might be more appropriate, however, simply to limit What do you see coming to the House floor during the next the amount of money a campaign could carry over or to two years? limit the kinds of expenses. Currently. campaigns can make Frenzel. A real practical-political problem exists. Pre­ unlimited contributions to other campaigns. So maybe viously whenever an election bill has been passed, there there ought to be a ruling that campaigns can spend only for have been one, two or three central points on which the campaign one is contributing to. Limiting the amount of everybody wanted to take some action. T his year we don't carryover a candidate could have in ofT-election years might have anything to rally around. The Senate wants some also be a good idea. 4 RIPON FORUM Ri pon Forum. Something else that has been talked what extent has fund raising become a preoccupation, even about is al lowing individuals to give greater contributions to a "fever" as one member of Congress said recently, among parties and parties greater contributions to candidates. Do your colleagues? you think that this would be a good plan, or do you think that Frenzel. Elizabeth Drew's article could have been it only gives certain individuals indirect influence over written 10 years ago, 50 years ago or 100 years ago. For congressional incumbents? that matter, it could have been wrilten any time during our Frenzel. Only if you believe in the devil-theory of country's history. We have always had those who think the history, that anybody giving money to anybody else creates system is going to hell . I'm not exactly sure why thi s is. some kind of great influence and pressure. But I don't really Neither do I know how you promote a person's candidacy believe that. I think that both parties, even in their reduced without advertising, direct mail. or a straightforward states, are pretty broad based and don't subject anyone to approach to constituents. I think that whenever a lot of undue influence. money is spent on both sides, it means that you have sharply I would like, and have as part of my reform bill, a greater contested elections. These, in tum, are good for democracy. ability for the parties to spend on their own on candidates of For ajob which has control over the spending of trillions of their choice. There is no limit on how much you can raise dollars, a few hundred thousand dollars on a campaign is except the li mitation on how much an individual can not a waste. contribute. The problem with that is the Democrats oppose Ripon Forum, If Bill Frenzel's back was to the wall, it, saying " we don't raise enough money so we are troubled and he absolutely had to argue for campaign fi nance reform, by any lim its on contributions." But we Republicans are what approach wou ld he take? able to give the max imum amount to many of our candi­ Frenzel, With the beginning caveat that I don't believe dates. A better alternative is to give the parties a little more in any use of the taxpayers' money to elect candidates for latitude. They should be made into special political com­ federal office, obviously the kind that I wou ld propose mittees, different from other committees. under great pressure would be that which interfered least Ripon Forum. Some observers are now concerned with with private financing mechanisms. This would involve a the use of "soft money" by national parties. Although once minimum-match from the federal treasury. The kindest raised by state parties and spent on behalf of bumper thing I can say is that the match would be a tiny fraction of stickers, buttons and even TV advertising, this money is funds raised privately, There are so many problems with it, now most frequently collected by the national parties and such as those we've found in the presidential races of John distributed in part at their direction. One Democratic Anderson and Eugene McCarthy. Gene was not a party activist was quoted recently as saying that these funds are because the Democrats on the Federal Election Commission " iIlegal as hell ." What is your opinion of this? (FEe) didn't like him. John was a party because they figured he wouldn't disrupt the elections. Inventing a fair system using public funds is difficult. It 's hard to keep the real squirrels out ofthe cage. And yet, in "There are important reforms needed in the trying to keep the worst of the sq uirrels out, you're going to system. The most important of these is a keep some good songbirds out, too. Drawing the line is larger role for the political parties. The difficult. second most important is in the operation of But I do believe that there are important reforms needed in the system. The most important of these is a larger role the FEe and how it trealS those people it for the political parties. The second most important is in the examines. '0 operation of the FEC and how it treats those people it examines. It occasionall y discourages political participa­ tion. Beyond that I think I'd be very reluctant to make major changes in the system. Frenzel. I think that what they are doing now is in Ripon Forum, How does the FEC discourage political conformity with the law. In 1979 we tried to make sure that participation? national, state and local parties could cooperate to promote Frenzel. The amount of reporting forms one must candidate slates. In fact, the original question was raised by complete and the FEe's response to the outside world need Mayor Ed Koch when he wanted to have a Koch-Mondale changing. Plus, some of their investigations scare people to button. That, however, was declared illegal. death, Rights are not as jealously guarded as they are under Let's remember that what we are trying to do is put our normal judicial system. people into the political process. But under the first I do understand, though, that it is very difficult to publicly-financed presidential election - one of the most reconcile a scheme offull disclosure with simplicity. Just as bland elections in history - there was no presence of any of in the tax code, perfect equity and simplicity are not always the political candidates in the states. One of our reactions to feasible. But we can do a better job in reporting. For that was to try to expand the party, allowing national parties example, Congress was very wise to declare the de minimus to spend some money within the state on a whole slate of $5,000 rule, meaning that a candidate trying to make a people. We tried to get some excitement and some zip into point rather than win an election is not required 10 fil l OUI the elections by putting in these slate card exemptions. I form s unless he or she rai ses more than $5,000. We must think they've been effective and while somebody thinks not discourage people at the beginning with a 101 of forms they're " illegal as hell; ' I hope we don't take them out. just as we should not discourage individuals about becoming Ripon Forum, Eli zabeth Drew wrote recently in The campaign treasurers or campaign chairmen. Many people New Yorker that "the quest for money has distended and would li ke to take these positions, bu t the responsibility of distorted this po li tical system to the point where it bears it. as well as the election law, are more than their financial li ttle or no resemblance to what it was supposed to be." To circumstances will allow.

APRIL 1983 5 argument being made that we should increase the limits on personal and individual contributions. The argument states that this would decrease the influence ofPACs because one wouldn't be so dependent on them. Ripon Forum. Would this lead us back to an era where a single individual could exercise unchecked power? Ifso, is this really a well-advised move? A Conversatio n Mathias. I don't think it would be the same. Every with Charl es Mathias situation is new and the fact is that PACs would still be in existence. They would simply be in a slightly different situ ation. Ripo n Forum. What is the better alternative then: to restrict PACs or to institute public financing of congres­ Sl'nator Charles McC. MOlh ias sional campaigns? Mathias. The better alternative is the old progressive Ripo n Foru m. Isn't it true that political action com­ Republican concept advanced by Theodore Roosevelt - mittees enhance the democratic process. allowing more public financing. He saw no other way to drive the people to contribute to political campaigns? corrupting influence of money out of elections than to pay M athias. First. there is a fundamental question we need an adequate amount out of the public treasury. I think this is to ask: does a problem exist? Maybe everyone likes the a sensible sol ution for the present, notwithstanding that we system as it is. But the 1982 elections did cost us nearly are running a huge federal deficit. A billion dollar election $900 million and if you add to that $100 million in still is costing money. It comes out of the peoples' pockets congressional mass-mail, which is in part political, you get whether through higher prices for consumer goods in the a billion dollar election. It seems to me that when you cross industries putting up the money or through other various that mark, just as when you cross the trillion dollar mark in indirect means. The billion dollars then would be no more the national debt. it is a moment to stop and reflect. ofa charge on the general economy than ifit came outofthe My opinion is that that amount of money swirling around public treasury. In fact, I think it would be much less than a in the electoral process creates a problem both perceptually billion dollars. and substantively. It certainly makes people more cynical about the electoral process. From the perception of the average citizen, it seems that one billion dollars taints the political process. From the substantive point of view, it is very difficult to say that big money doesn't have some " The better alternative is the old progressive influence in public life. I have said that I would never Republican concept advanced by Theodore change a vote because a big contributor asked me to do it. Roosevelt - public financing . .. " but I am equally free to admit that if a big contributor called me up I would probably take his call and talk to him. Any member of Congress who wou ld not admit at least to that. is not being frank. This perhaps brings us to your question: do PACs Other things can be done, too. For example, it is contribu te to the democratic process? In a theoretical way, somewhat difficult to explain why broadcasters should of course they do. The citizen who might be timid about double their rates for political broadcasting. A part of any contributing five dollars to a presidential or congressional public financing system , si nce it would come out of the campaign will contribute five dollars to hi s company or public treasu ry, should be to require broadcasters to limit neighborhood PAC and feel good about it. He is partici­ their rates. Perhaps more than that, they should contribute pating and has a liule bit of the action. But his five dollars as a condition of their licensing, the time in which political soon loses its identity and becomes part of the collective candidates carry their messages to the people. PAC. A ci tizen's participation is merged into collective Ripon Forum. Would this run contrary to judicial action. interpretations on freedom of speech? Ripon Forum. Does the access had by PACs and their M athias. You would have various problems under the Washington representatives to elected officials outweigh First Amendment, but some of them are far-fetched. Some any positive contribution they might make, such as decisions should be subordinated to the specific powers broadening the democratic process? which regulate elections, although these are thorny matters M athias. The guy who chips in live bucks, unless it's a of opinion. very tightly organized and narrowly-directed PAC, won't But there are also technological problems. We may lose a have much say in where that five bucks goes. The people grip on broadcasting with the growth of cable television making that decision are the handful of individuals who lead since the theory on which broadcasters might be asked to the PAC and determine where the money will be spent. You carry political messages - at either standard, reduced or really have concentrated political power in the hands of free rates - is based on the fact that they are granted the use those few people who organize. administer and lead PACs. of a fini te resource. Of course, that theory does not pertain Ripo n Forum, One argument says that we shou ld limit to cable TV, which uses a different method of transmission. PACs. If we do this, are we merely shifting the influence How we handle such broadcasts certainly creates a new back to wealthy contributors, who once had an undue problem - one I don't have an instant answer for. amount of electoral control? Ripo n Forum. This leads us to the next point: name M athias. At the moment, of course, there is a strong recognition. Do you thin k that in devising a public financing

6 RIPON FORUM scheme, incumbents would be sorely tempted to set low emerge. What prospects do you give for the Senate passing public spending limits. trading in on their own high name such a bill. even if it has nothing to do with Senate recognition, their access to the media, and the various other campaigns? congressional privileges available to them? Mathias. I doubt that it will be possible to pass a public Mathias. Incumbents will be sorely tempted to do many financing bill in the Senate during this Congress. But I think things. The question is whether they wil l resist the temptation. it will happen someday, and from my point of view, the Ripon Forum. Wi ll they? sooner the better. Mathias. It has to be recognized that incumbents, under Ripon Forum. What would you favor in lieu ofpublicJy any conceivable system, are going to have some advantages. financed campaigns: Lifting the ceilings on individual They also have some liabilities. As a member of Congress political contributions? Monitoring the limits on PACs? for twenty years, I must have cast many thousands of votes. Liberalizing tax credits for small contributors? Or, as is th is anyone of which can be drudged up and hurled back in my case in Oregon, public funding for voter pamphlets for each face without warn ing or notice. registered voter? Ripon Forum. Does this balance the advantages Mathias. I would be willing to consider any of those incumbents may write into law? measures and believe we will be considering a greal many of Mathias. No, I don't think so. It is not a question of them in the next few months. But I would reserve judgment advantages incumbents may write into the law for them­ until then. selves. There is a sense of political decency which isn't One of the th ings not on your list that is most disturbing is totally extinct in this country. I think that incumbents will how do you control the independent PAC? Senator Slade try to write fair laws and that it is up to the political action Gorton, R-Wash .. has suggested that candidates be allowed groups, not poli tica l action committees, to play an active to simply adopt the independent PAC and incorporate it role in form ulating these laws, gett ing them on the books within the overall campaign structure. whether they want to and making sure they are fai r. be incorporated or not. Ripon Forum. Would publ ic financing further reduce the dependence on party organization? Mathias. It wouldn't have to because the money could "The parties themselves. without any be contributed to parties, or the parties could have some participation by Congress. could make a share in the control of it. That was Theodore Roosevelt's mqjor revolution in presidential politics. original idea; the money would be contributed by the U.S. This includes not seating any delegates Treasury to the political parties. chosen outside of a designated primary Ripon Forum. How would this be financed? Mathias. There have been various alternatives, but I season and seating incumbent governors and think it simply has to be appropriations out of the general members of Congress as delegates-at-Iarge revenue. during conventions. " Ripon Forum. And those revenues would be raised through? Mathias. Taxation. Ripon Forum. What about lifting the ceilings on con­ Ripon Forum. What about a voluntary contribution on tributions. on all contributions. to opponents of any candi­ income tax returns? Would that bring enough into the date whose contributions or loans to his or her own federal treasury? campaign exceed the existing contributor ceilings? Mathias. If we're going to do it, we ought to do it right. Mathias. That's another of Senator Gorton's proposals What we're ta lking about is an essential function of wh ich has a great deal of merit. Personally, I think the democracy: choosing the people who hold public office. It is Supreme Court is wrong: we could place some limits on not immoral to make some expenditure for that purpose. what a candidate spends on his or her own campaign. But as Ripon Forum. How else could parties assist in reforming long as the court's opinion stands. that this is a restriction of the campaign system? the First Amendment. we're not going to do it. Mathias. The parties themselves, without any partici­ Ripon Forum. Would each of these be seen as an end in pation by Congress, could make a major revolution in itself. or as the means to an inevi table end: public financing? presidenti al politics. For example, if they would state that Mathias. No. they would not mean that. no delegate would be seated in a national convention except Ripon Forum. Recently there has been a great deal those chosen in a particular month. the numberof primaries written about political action committees. In fact. there would be limited while the primary season would be have been some very inflammatory comments made about shortened. This means concentrating the efforts of the the power money has over elected officials. As a member of candidates, concentrating the effort of the parties, con­ this nation's most prestigious electoral body, would you centrating the attention of the people. care to dism iss as myth the be lief which 84% of the Second, they could seat incumbent governors and American public share. that those who contribute large members of Congress as delegates-at-large during conven­ sums of money have too much influence over government? tions. This wou ld provide a continuity and a link between Mathias. I think th is is a perceptual problem. As I said the twelve momh. 365-day working party and the convention. at the outset. a big contributor usually has access. He may Since delegates often find it is the onl y active party work not have influence, but he has access. they do in the course of the year, oreven every four years, it Ripon Forum. Is there a one-PAC. one-vote system in would be a useful linkage. operation? Ripon Forum. With a more reform-minded, stronger Mathias. I think that's a little too strong. Democratic majority in the House of Representati ves, Ripon Forum. Not yet? chances are greater that a campaign finance bill will Mathias. Not yet • APRIL 1983 1 KEEPING TRACK OF SPECIAL INTERESTS

Washington's special interest lobbies have become a whipping - 158-67. December 16. 1982. Ripon vote: Nay. boy for every malaise from high milk prices to incomprehensible tax laws. In part. these accusations arc true. But as Madison 7. HR 5 133. Automobile Domestic Content Requirements. wrote, this is a nation of factions requiring the sensible balancing Passage of the bill to require automakers to usc set percentages of of competing interests. U.S. labor and parts in automobiles they sell in the United States. Whether such an equilibrium has been reached, of course, is Passed 215· 188: R - 44- 130: D - 17 I-58. December 15. 1982. open todcbate. Bulla understand the influence had by factions on Ripon lIote: Nay. the political process. one must first understand the voting patterns detennined by special interest legislation. Thus, this Forum 8. HR 621 1. TransportolionAssistonceActojl981. Stenholm. special interest voting chart has been compiled with that in mind. D·TX. amendment to waille the Dallis- Bacon Act wage require- Particular thanks must go to Carol W imble. a Ri pon Society staff ments for federally funded transportation projects. Rejected 174- membcr. for her invaluable assistance in tabulating these votes. 223: R - 138· 41: 0 - 36- 182. December 6, 1982. Ripon vote: which include bills sponsored by business. labor, and agricultural Yea. interests. among others. While they fall short of predicting the moves of any elected omcial. they do make one thing clear. 9. HR 46 12 . Dairy Price Supports. Passage of the bill to set Washington's special interests make themselves heard. dairy price supportS at $ 1 3. 10 per hundredweight until November 15, 1981. and to delay until that date the wheat producer referendum. Passed 328-58: R - 157- 15: 0 - 17 1-43. October I. 1981. Ripon vote: Yea. House Special Interest Votes 10. Futures Trading Act oj 1981. Conable. R-NY. amendment I. H J Res. 341. Alaska Natural Gas Trom'ponation System to the Futures Trading Act to provide for fees on futures and Wail·eN. Passage of the joint resolution approving the president's options transactions. and to authorize the Commodity Futures waivers of various stipulations in the 1977 decision to build a Trading Commission to reduce or suspend the fees in certain pipeline to carry natural gas from Alaska tothe continental United circumstances. Rejected 170-216: R - 99·78: D - 71 - 138. States. The waivers were aimed at securing private financing for September 23. \982. Ripon IIOle: Yea. the pipeline. Passed 233- 173: R - 11 9-67: D - 114- 106. December 9. 198 1. Ripon vote: Nay. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2. Velo ojFTC Used AUla Regulatioll. Adoption ofconcurrent RIPON VOTE N N N Y Y N N Y Y Y l oul resolution to disapprove the Federal Trade Commission rule Alabama requiring used car dealers to inform customers of known defects in Edwards ( R) y y y N Y Y N Y Y Y 50 used automobiles. Adopted 286- 133: R - 167- 18: D - 119- Dickinson ( R) Y Y ? N N N N ? Y Y 50 11 5. May 26. 1982. Ripon vote: Nay. Nichols (D) ? y y y N Y Y N Y N Bevill (D) Y Y Y Y N Y Y ? Y N " 3. HR 6995. Federal Trode Commission Authorization. Luken, Flippo (D) Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N "20 D· OH. amendment to eKempt state-licensed professionals from Smith (R) y y y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 40 FTC jurisdiction until Congress specifically grants that authority. Shelby (D) y y y y N N Y N Y N 30 Adopted 245- 155: R - 15 1-27: D - 94-128. December I. Alaska 1982. Ri pon vote: Nay. Young (R) y y y y N Y ? N Y N Arizona , " 4. H J Res. 287. [rifam Formula. Zablocki. D-WI. motion to Rhodes (R) Y Y N N N , N , 0 suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution expressing Udall (D) y •N ? y N Y Y N Y , 38 congressional "dismay" at the U.S. VOle at a World Health Stump (D) y y y N N N N Y N Y 40 Organization (WHO) assembly May 2 I . 1981. against a voluntary Rudd (R) y y y N X N N Y Y Y 50 international marketing code for infant formula and urging the Arkansas admini stration to notify WHO that the United States will Alexander (D) y y y y N ? ? Y N 25 cooperate fully to implement the code. Motion agreed to 30 1- 100: Bethune. Jr. (R) N Y Y Y Y N •N Y Y N 70 R - 85-93; 0 - 216· 7. J une 16. 1981. Ripon vote: Yea. Hammerschmidt ( R) y y y N N Y N Y Y N 30 Anthony (D) Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N 40 5. HR 3603. Food and Agriculture Act oj 1981. Shamansky. California D·OH. amendment to repeal the tobacco allotment system and Chappie ( R) Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y 60 tobacco price support loans. Rejected 184-231: R - 107-75: 0 Clausen ( R) Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y 60 - 77- 156. October 2 1. 198 1. Ri pon lIote: Yea. Matsui (D) N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N 40 Fazio ( D) Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N N 10 6. HR 3191. North American COIII'entiOI1 Tax. Passage of the Burton. J. (D) N ? N Y N Y # N Y ? 50 bill to allow certain business tax deductions for conventions held Burton P. (D) N N N Y N Y Y N Y , 56 on North Americancruiseships. Passed 227- 172: R - 69-1 05: 0 Miller (D) X N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y 70

8 RI PON FORUM 12345678910 12 3 45678910 RIPON VOTE N N N Y Y N N Y Y Y T~ RIPON VOTE N N N Y Y N N Y Y Y T~ Oellums (D) N N NY ? ? Y N Y N 63 Bafalis (R) Y ? Y Y N ? N ') Y ? 50 Stark (D) X N N Y N Y Y NY ? 56 Mica ( D) NY ? Y N Y Y Y Y N 33 Edwards (D) N N N Y N Y Y N Y Y W Shaw (R) Y N Y N Y N N Y Y Y ro Lantos (D) Y Y Y + Y Y Y ? Y N 33 Lehman (D ) Y C ? ? Y ? ? ? Y ') 67 McCloskey (R) ? Y ? Y ? YN ?' Y60 Pepper (D) # N N Y X N Y N ? N « Mineta (D) Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N W Fascell (D) N Y Y Y N ? Y ? Y ? 43 Shumway (R) Y Y Y N Y Y NY ') N 33 Georgia Coelho ( D) Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N N 10 Ginn ( D) , Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N 22 Panella (D) Y Y N Y N Y N N Y N ~ Hatcher (D) N Y Y ? N N Y N Y N 33 Pashayan ( R) Y Y Y N N N N N Y N W Brinkley (D) Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N ~ Thomas (R) Y Y Y ? N N N Y Y Y 56 Levitas (D ) N Y N Y N N Y N Y Y W Lagomarsino (R) Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y W Fowler (D) N Y N Y N Y Y N Y N ~ Goldwater ( R) #Y ?? Y ?? Y ? Y80 Gingrich ( R) Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y 50 Fiedler (R) Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y 70 McDonald (D) Y Y Y N + Y N Y Y N ~ Moorhead (R) Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N 50 Evans (D ) NY ') Y N Y N Y N ? 44 Beilenson (D) N N N Y N Y N N Y Y W Jenkins (D) Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N ~ Waxman (D) N N N Y Y N N N Y Y W Barnard (D) Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y ? 44 Roybal (D) N N N Y N Y Y N Y N 50 Hawaii Rousselot (R) Y Y ? N P ? NY? ? ~ Heftel (D) Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y N 30 Doman (R) Y Y Y N Y Y NY? ' 38 Akaka (D) Y N Y Y N Y Y N N N 20 Dixon (D) Y N N Y N Y Y N Y Y 50 Id aho Hawkins (D) Y N N Y N Y Y N Y Y 50 Craig (R) ? YYN Y NNYYN56 *Danielson (D) N Y Hansen (R) Y Y Y N N N N Y Y N 40 Martinez (D) ? Y N Y Y N N 18 Illinois Dymally (D) # Y N Y N ? Y N Y N 33 Washington (D) N N ' Y Y N Y N ? N 63 Anderson (D) Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y 50 Savage (D) N N N ? Y ? Y N ? ? 67 Grisham Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y 50 Ru sso (D) NNNYYYYNYN60 Lungren (R) Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y 50 Dcrwinski ( R) NY ') ? Y N N N Y Y 75 Dreier ( R) Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N W Fary ( D ) X N N Y N Y Y N ? N 44 Brown (D) Y N N Y NY ? N Y N 44 Hyde ( R) N N Y N Y N N Y Y N 70 Lewis (R) Y Y Y N N N N Y Y N 40 Collins (D) N N NYYNYNY ?78 Pallerson (D) Y N Y Y Y Y Y , Y Y 56 Rostenkowski ( D) NNNYNYNNYN60 Dannemeyer ( R) Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y 60 Yates ( D) N N N Y Y N ? ? Y ? 100 Badham (R) Y Y Y N Y Y X Y Y , 44 Porter (R) Y Y ? Y Y N N Y Y Y 78 Lowcry (R) Y Y Y Y YYNYYN40 Annunzio ( D) NNNYNYYN YN 50 Hunter (R) Y Y N N YNYYYN50 Crane, P. ( R) N Y Y N Y Y NY ') N 44 Burgener ( R) Y Y , N N N N Y Y Y 56 McC lory (R) Y Y Y N Y N NY ') Y 56 Colorado Erl enbom (R) Y Y N ? Y Y N Y Y Y 67 Schroeder (D) N N N Y Y N ? N Y Y 89 Corcoran (R) N Y Y N Y N N Y + N 60 Wirth (D) N N N Y Y N Y N Y Y 80 Martin (R) NYNYYN YNYN60 Kogovsck (D) Y Y N Y N N Y N N N 20 O'Brien (R) NYYYYNYNYY60 Brown (R) N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N 70 Michel (R) NYYNNNNN YY 50 Kramer (R) Y Y Y N Y N NYNN40 Railsback ( R) N Y N Y Y NY ') Y N 67 Connecticut Findley (R) N Y Y Y N N ? Y Y N 44 ·Cotter (D) ? Madigan (R) Y Y N N N N Y N Y N 30 Kennelly (D) N Y N Y N N 33 Crane, D. (R) NYYNYYNYYN50 Gejdenson (D) N N N Y Y Y Y N N Y 60 Price (D ) NNNYNYYN Y N 50 DeNardis (R) N Y Y Y YYNNYY50 Simon (D ) N Y N Y Y Y Y N ? N 44 McKinney (R) Y N Y Y YYYNYY50 Indiana Ratchford (D) N N N Y YYYNYN60 ·Benjamin (D) YY YN Y 40 Moffett (D) N N ? Y Y N Y NY ? 67 Hall (D) Y Y Y N 0 Delaware Fithian (D) ? Y N Y N Y Y NY ') 38 Evans (R) Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N 50 Hiler ( R) Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y 60 Florida CoalS (R) YYYYYNNYYY 70 Hutto (D) Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N 40 Hillis (R) YYYYNYYYYN 30 Fuqua (D) Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N 40 Evans ( D) Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N 20 Be nnett (D) Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y 50 Mycrs (R) YYYNNNNYYN40 Chappell (D) Y Y N - N YNYY ' 44 Hamilton (D) YYYYNNYNYY40 McCollum (R) Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y ? 67 Sharp (D) YNNYNNYNYY60 Young ( R) Y N Y Y Y NNYYY80 Jacobs (D) NYNYYNYNYN60 Gibbons ( D) Y N N N Y Y NY? Y 56 Deckard ( Po) NY ? NY? N Y Y ') 63 Ireland (D) Y Y Y ? N Y N ? ' ? 17 Iowa Nelson (D) Y Y Y Y Y ? N Y + N 56 Leach (R) NNN YY NYYY Y 90

APRIL 1983 9 12 3 45678910 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 RIPON VOTE NNNYYNNYYY'..... RIPON VOTE N N N Y Y N N Y Y Y r_ Tauke ( R) N Y Y Y Y - X Y Y N 60 Albosta (D) Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N N 10 Evans (R) NYYNNNNYYY60 Davis ( R) NYYYYYYN YN40 Smith (0 ) NNYYNNNNYY 70 Bonier (D ) NNNYYYYYNN60 Harki n (0) NNNYNNYNYN60 Crockett (D) NNNYYNYNYY80 Bedell ( D) NYNYNNNNYY 70 Hencl (D ) Y N NY ? Y Y N Y N 56 Kansas Ford (D) YYNYN 'I YNN ? 25 Roben s (R) YYYYNNNYYN50 Dingell (D ) " Y N ? N Y Y N ? ? 17 Jeffries (R) YYYNYYNYYN30 Brodhead (D) NNNYYNYNYY80 Winn (R) YYYYNNNYYNSO Blanehard (D) NY ? Y N ? iF ? ? N 33 Glickman ( D) YNNYNNNNYN60 Broomfield (R) N Y Y N Y N Y Y ? Y « Whittaker ( R) YYYYYNNYYY70 Minnesota Kentucky Erdahl ( R) NYNYYNNYNN70 Hubbard (D) Y Y Y N N ? Y N Y N II Hagedorn (R) NY Y NY?"YYN50 Natcher (D) N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N 30 Frenzel (R) YYYNYNNYYN50 Mazzoll ( 0 ) N N N Y N N Y N + N 60 Vento (D) YNNYYNYNNY60 Snyder ( R) N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y ~ Sabo (D) YNNYNNYNNY50 Rogers (R) N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y 50 Weber (R) NYYYNNNYNN 50 Hopkins (R) N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N 50 Stangeland (R) Y Y Y N N Y N Y N N 20 Perkins (D) N Y Y Y N N Y N Y N ~ Oberstar (D) Y N N Y Y Y Y N N N 40 Louisiana Mississ ippi Li vi ngston ( R) Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y ~ Whitten ( D) NYYYNYYN YN 30 Boggs (D) # Y Y Y N Y Y N ? N I I Bowen (D) Y Y ? Y N Y N N Y N 33 Tauzin (0) YYYYNYYN "NO Montgomery (D) YYYYNNNYYN 50 Roemer (D) Y Y N Y N N Y N Y Y ~ ·Dowdy (D) YYY NYYNNN 0 Huekaby (0 ) Y Y Y " N N N Y Y N 44 Lou ( R) YYYNNNNYYY 50 Moore (R) Y Y Y N N Y N Y N N 20 Missouri Breaux (0 ) Y Y ? ? N Y N N Y N 25 C lay ( D) NNNYNYYN Y N 50 Long (D ) YYYYNYNNNNIO Young (D) Y Y Y Y N Y Y N " N II Maine Gephardt ( D) YYNYNYYN Y N 30 Emery ( R) N N Y Y Y Y ? Y Y N 67 Skelton ( D) Y Y Y Y N Y Y ? N ? 13 Snowe (R) N N N Y Y N N Y Y N 00 Bolling (D ) ? N ? YNY ?? ? Y 60 Maryland Coleman ( R) NYYYNNYY Y N 70 Dyson (D) N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N 30 Taylor (R) N Y Y N N Y N Y N Y 40 Long (D) N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 70 Bailey (R) Y Y Y N N N N Y Y N 40 Mikulski ( D) Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y 60 Volkmer (D) N Y Y Y N N Y N N N 30 Holt (R) Y Y Y Y N ? N Y Y Y 56 Emerson (R) Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N 40 Hoyer (D) Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y N 30 Montana Byron (D) Y Y Y ? Y N N Y N N 44 Williams (D) YNNYYYYNNN40 Mitchell ( D ) N N N Y N Y Y N Y N 50 Marlenee (R) YYYYNNN ? YN44 Barnes (D ) N N N Y Y Y Y ? Y Y 78 Nebraska Massaehuseu s Bereuter (R) Y CN YYNNYYY 89 Conte (R) N N N YYNYNYY80 Daub (R) YYYYYNNYYY80 Boland (0) N N N YNYYNYY60 Smith ( R) YYYYNNNYYY60 Early (0) N N N Y Y Y Y N ? Y 67 Nevada Frank (D) N N ? Y Y N Y N Y Y 78 Santini (R) #YY ? YNN " YN 50 Shannon (0) N N N Y N N Y N ? N 56 New Hampshire Mavroules (0) N N N Y N Y Y N Y N 50 D'Amours (D ) NY? " Y Y ? N Y Y 57 Markey (0) N N N Y N ? Y N Y Y 67 Gregg (R) NYYYYNNYYN70 O'N eill (0 ) New J ersey Moakley ( D) ? N N Y N Y Y N Y Y 56 Florio (D ) N N NY ? Y Y ? 'I Y 63 Heckler ( R) N ' N ? Y Y " ? N Y Y 86 Hughes (0) N Y Y Y # Y Y N Y Y 50 Donnelly (D) N N N Y N Y N N Y Y ro Howard (D) ? N N Y N Y Y N Y N 44 SlUdds (D) N N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y W Smith ( R) YNNYYYYNYY60 Michigan Fenwick (R) N X N Y Y N N Y Y Y 100 Conyers ( D) N N N Y Y y Y ? Y ? 75 Forsythe ( R) YYY ? YN ?+ Y ? S6 Pursell (R) N Y N Y Y "" YYY 88 Roukema (R) N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y W Wolpe (D) N N N Y Y NYNYY 80 Roe (D) NNYYNYYNYN40 Siljander ( R) Y Y Y N Y YYYYN30 Holl enbeck (Ft) N N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y ro Sawyer (R) N Y Y Y Y YNYYN60 Rodino (D) NNNYNYYNYY60 Dunn (R) N Y Y Y Y NYYYY70 Minish (D) N N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y 70 Kildee (D) NNNVYNYN Y Y 80 Rinaldo (R) Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y 50 T raxler (D) NYNYNYYN N N 20 Courter (R) YYYYYNNNYY60 Vander J agt ( R) Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y N 30 Guarini (D) NNYYYYYNYN50

10 RIPON FORUM 12345678910 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 RIPON VOTE NNNYYNNYYYTooal RIPON VOTE N N N V V NNYYYTouI Dwyer (D) N N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 50 Latta ( R) N Y Y N VNYYVY60 New Mexico McEwen (R) Y Y Y N NNVYVY40 Lujan (R) v V V Y N N N V V V W Brown (R) N Y Y N NY ? YYY44 Skeen (R) Y V V N N N N V V N ~ Kindness ( R) Y Y Y N NNYVYY40 New York Weber (R) N Y Y N NNNNVY50 Carney ( R) N Y V N N V N V V V 50 Miller ( R) Y Y Y N NNYYVY30 , Y Downey (D) N N N V Y V Y N V N W Stanton ( R) N ' N ? N ? Y Y 83 Carman ( R) Y Y V Y V N N N Y Y W Shamansky ( D ) N N N N V V Y N Y Y W Lent ( R) Y V N V V V N N Y N ~ Pease (D) N Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y m McGrath (R) N V NY ? V N N V N 56 Seiberling (D) N Y N V N N Y N V Y W LcBoutillicr (R) V V Y N Y ? ? N V N 25 Wylie (R) N Y V N Y N Y V Y N 50 Addabbo (D ) N N Y Y N Y Y N ? ? 38 Regula (R) N Y V N Y N V V V Y W Rosenthal (D) N N N ? N ~ Y N V V 63 -Ashbrook (R) N Y N N V N Y ? Y 50 Ferraro (D) V N N V V V Y N V N 50 Applegate (D) ? Y V V V V V V ? Y 50 Biaggi (D) N N N V N V Y N Y N 50 Williams ( R) N V Y V # Y V N ? V 44 Scheuer (D) V N N Y V V Y N V V W Oakar (D) N N N V Y Y V N Y N 60 Chisholm (D ) N X N Y N Y Y ? ? ~ 57 Stokes (D) ? N N V N V # N Y N 44 Solarz (D) V N ? V N V V N Y Y 44 Eckart (D ) N Y N V V N Y N Y N W -Richmond (D) N N V N V 80 Mottl (D) N N N V V Y Y ? Y N 67 Zeferetti (D) Y N N V NY ? N V ? 50 Oklahoma Schumer (D) Y N N V Y Y V N V Y W Jones ( D) Y Y ? V N Y N N V N 33 Molinari (R) V V V V V N N V V N W Synar (D) V Y N V N V N N V N ~ Green (R) V N N ? Y P N N V V 67 Watkins (D) V Y V Y N N V V N N 30 Rangel (D) N N N V N V Y N V N ~ McCurd y (0) V V Y V N N Y Y N N 30 Weiss ( D ) N N N V V V V N V ? 67 Edwards (R) Y Y V N Y N N Y V N 50 Garcia (D) X N N V Y ? V N ? ? 57 English (D) Y Y V V N N Y Y N N 30 Bingham (D) Y X N V N N N N V V m Oregon Peyser (D) N N N V V Y Y N V V m AuCoin (0) X N N ? V V N N Y N 67 Ottinger (D) N N N V V N Y N Y V m Smith ( R) V V Y N N N N V Y V W Fish ( R) N V N V ? V Y N V ? 50 Wyden (D) N N N Y Y N N N Y N W Gilman (R) N N N V + V Y N V V 70 Weaver (D ) N N N V V Y Y N Y N W McHugh (D) V N N V V N N N NNW Pennsylva nia Stratton (D) VVVVNVYNY ?22 Foglietta (I) N N N V V Y Y N Y V W Solomon (R) V V ? N ? V V NY ? 14 Gray (D) N N N V N Y Y N Y N 40 Martin (R) V V ~ ? N N N V N Y 50 -Smith (D ) V Y ? N ? Y NY? 14 Mitchell (R) N V V V Y V N N N Y 50 Dougherty ( R) N Y Y V Y Y Y N Y N 40 Wortley (R) V V N N N Y V V N ~ 22 Schulze (R) Y Y Y NY? ? N Y N 25 lee (R) N V V Y V ? V ? N ? 43 Vatron (D) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N 30 Horton ( R) N V N V Y Y Y N Y V W Edgar (D) N N N Y Y N V N V Y W Conable ( R) V V V C Y N N V V V 67 Coyne, J. (R) V V Y V Y N ? N Y Y W LaFalce (D) N N N V V Y Y ? V ? 75 Shuster (R) V Y ? N N ? ? Y N V 29 Nowak (D) ? N N V Y V Y N Y V 67 McDade (R) Y N Y Y ? N Y N Y Y 56 Kemp (R) N V V N Y N N ? Y N 56 Nelligan ( R) Y Y V Y Y Y Y N Y Y ~ Lundine ( D) ? N N V ? V V N N V 50 Murtha (D) Y Y Y Y N Y Y N V N W North Carolina Coughlin (R) Y N N N Y N Y V V Y m Jones (D) V V V Y N ? V V ? N 25 Coyne. W. (D) Y N N Y Y Y V N V Y W Fountain ( D ) N V V Y N N N V N N ~ Ritter (R) Y Y Y N Y V Y N V V W Whitley (D) Y V V V N Y N V NNW Walker ( R) Y Y Y N N N N Y V Y 50 Andrews (D) N V V V N N N V N N 50 Ertel (D) N Y N Y Y N Y N V ? 67 Neal (D) N V ? Y N V N V N N 44 Walgreen ( D) V N N Y V N Y N Y Y 70 Johnston (R) V V V ? N V N V V Y 44 Goodling (R) V Y Y Y V N Y V ? Y 56 Rose ( D ) V V V V N V V V N ? 22 Gaydos (D ) Y N Y Y N V Y N V N 30 Hefner ( D ) N V Y V N N N V N N 50 Bailey (D) Y N N Y N V Y N V N 30 Martin (R) V V V N N N N Y V V 50 Murphy ( D) V Y Y V Y Y V N ? V 33 Broyhill (R) N Y N N N N N Y V Y 70 Clinger (R) V Y V Y V N N N Y Y W Hendon (R) V V V N N N N V V N ~ Marks ( R) Y Y ? Y N ? Y ? V V 43 North Dakota Atkinson (D) V Y Y Y Y Y N N V V 50 Dorgan (D) N Y N Y N N V N N N ~ Rhode Island Ohio SI. Germain (D) N N N V V V V N Y Y 70 Gradison (R) N N N N V N N N Y V 80 Schneider (R) N N N V V V V N V Y 70 Luken ( D ) V V V Y N V V N N N 10 South Carolin a Hall (D) ? V Y V V Y Y N Y V « Harnett (R) Y Y Y V N V N Y V Y 50 -Oxley ( R) N Y Y V N N Y Y Y 78 Spence (R) N Y Y V N Y N Y V V W APRIL 1983 11 [2345678910 1 2345678910 RIPON VOTE NNNYYNNYYyr", .. RIPON VOTE N N N Y Y N N Y Y Y T_ Derrick (D) N Y Y Y N Y NY' N 33 Dicks (D) Y Y NY? Y Y N Y N 33 Campbell ( R) Y Y Y N N Y N ? Y N 22 Lowry (D) Y N N Y N Y N N Y Y 50 Holland ( D ) Y # Y Y N ? NY? N 38 West Virginia Napier (R) Y Y Y ? N Y N Y Y ? 38 Mollohan (D ) NY ? Y N Y Y • Y N 38 South Dakota Benedict ( R) Y Y Y N N N N Y Y N ~ Daschle ( D ) Y Y N Y NY ' N N N 22 Staton ( R) Y Y Y N N N N Y Y Y m Robens ( R) Y Y Y Y N N N Y N N ~ Rahal! ( D ) Y#YYNYYN ? NII Tennessee Wisconsin Quillen (R) Y Y Y N N Y N N • N II Aspin (D) N N N Y N N Y N N N 50 Duncan ( R) Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y N 30 Kastenmeier ( D ) N N N Y N NY ? N Y 6 Bouquard (D) Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y N ~ Gunderson ( R) N Y Y Y N N N Y N N 40 Gore ( D) Y N N Y N Y N N Y N ~ Zablocki (D) Y N N Y N Y Y N N N ID Boner (D) Y Y Y Y N Y Y NY' 22 Reuss (D) Y N N Y Y N N N Y N W Beard (R) ? Y Y ? N ? X Y ? • ~ Petri (R) N Y Y Y Y N N N N • 56 Jones (D) Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N W Obey (D ) N N N Y Y N Y N N Y W Ford (D) N N N Y N Y Y N Y N 50 Roth ( R) N Y Y Y Y N Y Y • Y 67 Texas Sensebrenner (R) N Y Y Y Y N N Y NNW Hal!, S. (D) Y Y Y Y N N Y ~ N N 22 Wyoming Wilson (D) Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N 20 Cheney (R) Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y W Collins ( R) Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y ? 56 Hall, R. ( D) Y Y Y P N N Y Y N N 22 ·George E. Danielson resigned from office March 9. 1982. Mattox (D ) Y ? Y Y N NY' Y ? 43 Matthew G. Maninez was swom in as his replacement. Jul y 15. Gramm (D) Y Y N N Y N N Y Y Y W 1982. Archer (R) Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N ~ ·William C()(!>er died September 8. 1981. His office was assumed Fields (R) Y Y Y N ? Y N Y Y Y 44 by Barbara Kt!nnelly. Brooks (D ) Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N 10 ·Adam Benjamin died in office. September 4. 1982. He was Pickle (D ) Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y N ~ replaced by Katie Hall. Leath (D) Y Y Y Y N Y NY? N 33 ·Wayne Dowdy was swom in July 9. 1981. after the resignation Wright ( D ) Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N 20 of Jon Hinson on April 13. 198 1. Hightower (D) Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y N 50 ·Fred Richmond resigned from office on August 25. 1982. Patman ( D) Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y N 30 de la Garza (D) Y Y ? Y N Y N N Y N 33 • John M. Ashbrook died April 24. 1982. His wife. Jean. assumed White (D ) Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N ~ the office on June 6. 1982. Slenholm ( D) Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y N 50 ·Joseph F. Smith was sworn into office on July 28. 198 1. replacing Leland (D) Y N N ? N Y Y N ? N 25 Raymond F. Lederer who resigned May 5. 1981. Hance (D) Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y • « ·Eugene Atkinson changed his pany membership from Demo­ Gonzalez (D) N N N Y N N Y N N N 50 crati c to Republican. effective October 14. 1981 . Loemer (R) Y Y Y N N N N Y Y N 40 St ~ nate Special Interest Votes Paul (R) Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N ~ Kazen (D) Y Y Y Y N N N N N N 30 I. S J Res. 115 . Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System Frost (D) YYYYNYYNNNIO lVahws. Pass:age of the joi nt resolution approving the president's Utah waive rs or various stipulations in the 1977 decision to build a Hansen (R) Y Y Y NY ? N Y + Y 56 pipeline to ca,·ry natural gas from Alaska to the continental U.S. Marriott (R) Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N 50 The waivers were aimed al securing private finan cing for the Verm ont pipeline. Passed 75-19: R - 44-6; D - 31 -13. November 19. Jeffords (R) N Y N Y N N N N Y N W 198 1. Ri pon vOle: Nay. Virginia 2. S Con Re s. 60. Disappro\'a! o/Federal Trade Commission Trible (R) Y Y Y N Y Y NY ? N 33 Used-Car Ruf". Adoption of the concurrent re solution to di sap­ Whitehurst ( R) Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N ~ pro\'e a proposed Federal Trade Commission rule to required Bliley ( R) Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y 50 used·car dealers to infonn customers or major known defects in Daniel. R (R) Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y N ~ used automobiles. Adopted 69-27: R - 40-12: 0 - 29-15. May Daniel. D. (D) N Y Y N N Y N Y Y N ~ 18. 1982. Ri pon vote: Nay. Butler ( R) ? Y Y N N N N Y Y Y 56 3. S I 193. Slale Deportmelll A ulhorizationlhualll Formula. Robinson ( R) Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y N 30 Durenbcrger. n -M N. amendment expressingcongressional"con­ Parris ( R) N C Y ? N Y N ? Y N 43 cern" at the U.S. vote against the voluntary international code ror Wampler (R) N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N 50 marketing infant fonnula adopted May 21 by the World Health Wolf( R) C Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N 44 Organization. Adopted 89-2: R - 47-2: 0 - 42-0. June 18. Was hington 198 1. Ripon vote: Yea. Pritchard ( R) Y N Y Y Y Y NY ' Y 67 4. S 884. Agriculture alld Food Act oj 1981. Helms. R. NCo Swift (D) Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N ~ motion to table (kill)the Hatfield. R-OR. amendment to repeal th e Bonker (D) N N N Y Y Y N - Y N 78 tobacco acreage allotment, quota and price suppon programs. Morri son (R) Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N 50 Mot ion agreed t053-42: R - 25 -25: 0 - 28·17. September 17 . Foley (D) Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y N 30 198 1. Ripon v()\e: Nay.

12 RIPON FORUM 1 2345678910 5. S 898. Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation. NNNYYNNYYVTOIoi Passag;' of the bill to deregulate much of the telecommuni.cations RJPON VOTE industry and allow the American Telephone & Telegraph Co., Matsunaga (D) + + Y Y V Y Y N N N 50 through the formation of a fully separated subsidiary, t.o enter Idaho unregulated markets. Passed 9Q.4: R - 50-0; 0 - 40-4. October McClure ( R) Y Y Y V Y V Y N N N ~ 7,1981. Ripon vote: Yea. Symms (R) Y V N Y V V N N N N 50 6. S 509. Milk Price Supports. Passage of the bill to eliminate Illinois Y ~ Y N V V V N Y N 56 the April I , 1981 adjustment in the parity price support for dairy Percy (R) Y Y Y V Y Y Y N Y Y ~ products. Passed 88-5: R - 47-2; 0 - 41 -3. March 25 , 198 1. Dixon (D) Indiana Ripon vote: Yea. Lugar (R) N N Y Y Y ? N N Y N ~ 7. S 1408. Military Construction Authon·zation. Jack ~;on, 0 - Quayle (R) V Y V Y Y Y N N Y N 70 WA. amendment to delete a provision of the bill that exempted Iowa military construction projects from the so-called Davis-Bacon Grassley (R) Y V Y Y Y V N Y N N 50 Act. which required building contractors on federal construction Jepsen ( R) Y V Y V Y Y N N N N ~ projects topay locally prevailing wages. Adopted 55-42: R - 16· Kansas 35: 0 - 39-7. November 5.1981. Ripon vote: Nay. Dole (R) Y Y Y V Y Y N N Y N 70 8. S 509. Milk Price Supports. Melcher. D-MT, amendmcnt to Kassenbaum (R) Y V Y Y V V N N Y N 70 establish a quota on thc imponation of casein products into the Kentucky United States. Rejectcd 38-60: R - 7-45 : 0 - 31 -15. Ma.rch 24. Ford (D) Y V Y Y Y Y V Y N Y 30 1981. Ri pon vote: Nay. Huddleston (D) Y V Y Y Y V Y Y N N ~ 9. S Unprinted Amendment No. 1488. Motion to table the Louisiana McClure amendment temporarily limiting the expenditure of Johnston ( D) V Y V V Y Y Y Y N N ~ funds by the Federal Trade Commission against state-regulated Long (D) V N V Y Y ~ Y Y ~ N 50 professions. Tabled 59-37: R - 31-21 ; 0 - 28- 16. December 16. 1982. Ripon vote: Yea. Maine 10. Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. Eagleton. D-MO. Cohen (R) Y N Y N Y Y N N V N ~ amendment to restore $400 million to the trade adjustment Mitchell ( D) Y N Y N Y Y V Y Y Y W assistance program. which provides benefits to workers who lose Maryland their job due to imported goods. Rejected 31-64: R - 5-46; 0 - Mathias (R) Y NY ? Y V Y N Y Y 67 26-18 . J une, 1982. Ripon vote: Nay. Sarbanes (0) V N Y V V V Y Y Y Y 50 12345678910 Massachusetts RIPON VOTE N N Y N Y Y N N Y N T_ Kennedy ( D ) N N Y N V Y V N Y Y W Alabama Tsongas (D) N N Y N Y Y Y N Y N ~ Denton (R) v Y Y Y V Y N N NNW Michigan Henin (D) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y 30 Levin (D) N Y V Y Y Y Y Y Y V ~ Alaska Riegle (D) N Y + N Y Y Y Y V Y W Murkowski (R) Y Y Y ? Y Y Y N Y N 67 Minnesota Stevens ( R) Y Y V Y Y '! ~ ~ N N 43 Boschwitz (R) Y Y V N Y Y N N Y N 80 Arizona Durenbcrger ( R) N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N W Goldwater (R) ? ? Y Y Y Y ? N ? N 83 Mississippi DeConcini (D) N Y Y N N Y Y Y N N 50 Cochran ( R) V V Y Y Y Y N N NNW Arkansas Stennis (D) V V Y Y V Y N Y N N 50 Bumpers (D) Y Y ? N Y Y Y Y Y N 56 Missouri Pryor (D) Y + Y V Y Y N Y Y N W Danforth (R) Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y N W California Eagleton ( D) Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y V 50 Hayakawa (R) Y Y ? Y Y Y N N Y N 67 Montana Cranston (D) Y NY? N Y Y N Y Y 44 Baucus (D) Y Y V Y Y Y Y Y Y N 50 Colorado Melcher (0) Y Y V Y ? Y Y Y N V 22 Armstrong (R) ? Y Y N Y Y N N N N 78 Nebraska Hart (D) Y N '! Y N Y V Y Y N « Exon ( D) Y Y Y Y V Y Y Y N N ~ Conneetlcut Zorinsky (0) Y Y Y Y V Y N Y N N 50 Weicker (R) Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y N 70 Nevada Dadd(D) N N Y NY ? Y ? y y 60 Luah (R) Y Y Y V Y Y N N N Y 50 Delaware: Cannon (D) Y Y V N Y Y + Y Y V ~ Roth (R) Y Y Y N V Y N N N Y W New Hampshire Biden (D) N N Y N V Y Y N Y V W Humphrey (R) N V Y N Y + N N Y N ~ Aorida Rudman ( R) YY ? NYVYNNYN89 Hawkins (R) Y N Y Y V + N N Y N W New J ersey Chiles (D) V Y Y V Y Y Y Y N N ~ Bradlcy (0) Y N Y - V Y V N Y Y 70 Georgia ·Williams (D) N Y NY ? Y N ? 83 Mattingly (R) N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N W Brady ( R) Y Y 50 Nunn (D) V Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N 70 New Mex ico Hawaii Domenici (R) V V Y Y V Y V N N N 50 Inouye (0) Y Y V Y ? Y Y N N Y 33 Schmitt (R) Y Y ? N Y Y N N N N 67

APRIL 1983 13 12345678910 K.y RIPON VOTE N N N Y Y N N Y Y Y T~~ V- Voted for (Ve a) New York # - Paired for +-An.nounced for O·Amato ( R) y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N W Moynihan ( D ) N N ? N Y Y Y N Y Y 78 N- Voted against (Nay) North Carolina X- Pa.ired against East ( R) Y Y N Y Y Y N N N N 50 --Announced against P- Vo ted ··presenC· Helm (R) Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N @ North Dakota C- Voted ··presenC· to avoid a possible connict of Andrews (R) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 50 - interest Burdick (D) Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y m ?- Did not vote or otherwise make a position known Ohio Blank - Office vacant at time of vote Gtenn (D ) N Y Y Y Y Y Y N ? Y 56 Metzenbaum (D) N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 70 Oklahoma Rlpon-Bow-Adenauer Nickles ( R) Y Y Y N Y Y N N N N 70 Boren (D) Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N 50 Calnference Registration Oregon Hatfield (R) Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y N 80 Packwood (R) Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y N W Pennsylva nia Address Heinz (R) Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y W Specter ( R) Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y 70 Buswof'ss Ptlone Rhode Island Chafee ( R) ? N Y N V Y Y N Y N 89 Pelt (D) N N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y W South Carolina Please register me for the Second Transatlantic Thurmood (R) Y Y Y V Y Y N N Y N 70 Confe(!~e of the Ripon Society and the Bow Hollings (D ) Y Y Y V N Y V N NNW Group with the Konrad Menauer Foundarron. South Dakota Abdnor ( R) Y V Y Y Y V N V Y N @ Pressler ( R) N V V N Y Y N Y NNW Tennessee Baker ( R) Y Y V Y Y V Y N Y N @ Sasser ( D ) Y Y + V Y Y Y Y N Y 30 Texas Tower ( R) V Y ~ Y ? Y N N N ~ 43 Bentsen ( D ) V Y Y N ~ V N Y N N 56 Utah June 29 - July 3, 1983 Gam ( R) Y V V N Y Y N N N N 70 london, England/ Oxford, England Hatch (R) Y V V N Y Y N N ~ N 78 Vermont Sesslorls Include: y y Stafford (R) , Y - ~ N Y Y Y N 44 -"American Troops In Europe: Is There No Le ahy (D ) y Y Y Y N V Y Y Y 33 Better Way?" Virginia -" Reunification of Germany" Warner ( R) N Y V Y Y Y N N Y N W -"Britain's Role In the Defense of Freedom" Byrd (I) V Y Y V V Y N N Y N W Washington Speakers Include: Gorton ( R) V N Y N Y Y N N Y N W - Elliot Richardson J ackson (0) Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y @ - WIIUam T. Coleman. Jr. West Virginia - Representative Jim leach Byrd (D) ? V Y Y V Y Y Y Y Y 44 Randolph ( D) Y Y Y V Y Y V Y N Y 30 Reservations: S1 00 Wisconsin Registration: $250 (Includes meats and accom­ Kasten ( R) Y Y Y N Y N N Y N N 50 modations) + Air Fare Proxmire ( D) N N V N Y N Y Y Y N m Make your check payable to: The Ripon Educa­ Wyoming tional Fund, P.O. Box J890. Washington. D.C Simpson ( R) Y V Y N V Y N N N N 70 200 13 Wallop ( R) Y Y Y N ~ V N N N N 67 For more Information contact Steve livengood. The Ripon Educational Fund. P.Q. Box J89O. - Harrison Williams. J r. resigned from office March I I. 1982. Washington. DC. 2001 3; 202-544- 1566. Sworn in as hi s replacement was Nichol as F. Brady on April 20. 1982.

14 RIPON FORUM Would YOU Buy the Gospel from this Man? There are men like this running around all over the country. And they're multiplying. They have something to se ll. They call it "Jesus Christ." But we suspect they're also peddling intolerance and foar and middle class smugness and indifference to the poor. Their message is actually very beguiling. They tell us the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice. Then they flatter us by telling charity-someone say so. If you're fatigued us that America is the " New Israel," God's with " Me" Christianity, maybe it's time for Chosen Land. But have you noticed that they you to investigate the NEW OXFORD can't quote Scripture when they preach REVIEW. We don't have any gimmicks, just about America as the Promised Land? They the old, old gospel-the gospel of the don't because it isn't in Scripture. apostles and Fathers and saints and martyrs They tell us America can be prosperous and bishops and fools for Christ. The un· and mighty again-if we repent. changing faith. The faith of the ages. To everyone they promise something-be Sure, we publish a magazine. But before it health or riches or popularity or job promo­ getting into that, this warning: It sometimes tions or better sex lives. If you repent. " Love hurts to die to self and grow In grace. God," they say. But not for God's sake. The NEW OXFORD REVIEW isn't for Rather, for your own sake. everyone. But if you're up to being challeng­ They tell us that God is sovereign-but ed by the historic faith, maybe you are for the have you noticed how they turn God NEW OXFORD REVIEW. And maybe it would Almighty into man's slave? "Cheap grace" is be good for you to hear from our what it is. writers-people like Isabel Anders, Robert As seductive as this new discount gospel Coles, Peter E. Gillquist, Thomas Howard, is, it is-we fear-not the gospel. And it's Kathryn Lindskoog, Juli Loesch, Paul C. Vitz, about time that-in all sincerity and and Robert E. Webber. IP\QM al ...... 2 10 8 .....k. lor dell •• ,.,. 01 lI"tluu•. ) monthly magazine

------SPECIAL RATES FOR FIRST·TIME SUBSCRIBERS

o One·year subscription ... $9 (regularly $14) o One-year Canadian or foreig n subscription . . . $11 (regu larly $17) (Payment mus t be drawn in U.S. funds) o One·year student or retired person's sub .... $ 7 (regularly $12) o Sample copy . .. $3.50 o Three·year subscription ... $19 (regularly $38) Make check payable 10 " American Church Union" and mall 10 :

New Oxford Re.lew NAME (Please print or type) Room 303 6013 Lawton Ave. STREET ADDRESS Oak land, CA 94618 ------CITY STATE ZIP CODE PAYMENT MUST ACCOMPANY ORDER REPUBLICAN PARTY RULES: The Mandate for Change

by Josiah Lee Auspir.z

Editor's NOle: M r. Auspitz is the country's leading Finall y, the Republican National Committee (RNC) is scholaronlhe del'eiopment of Republican Party rufes. H is obliged by a resolution of the ) 980 Convention to produce a hislOry wId analysis 0/ the Rules presented 01 the 1980 study of its delegate allocation fonnula. rfthere is any time to COIll'ellfion was specifically ciled ill a Cot/wmrion Rules strengthen the long-tenn prospects of the party this is it. Committee Resolution calling for "careful and detailed study and fl'o/uario,, " by the Republican National Com­ The Changing Role of Stale Parties mittee (RNC) and requesting il to report to the 1984 cOIII'ention on delegate allocation. The most dramatic change in political campaigning since This article is adapted/rom a presentoriol/ 10 rheopening the Coolidge years has been in the role of the state parties. dinner o/Ihe RNC Rules Committee 01 its January 1983 Before the advent of national media state party organizations meelillg. The RNe Rules Committee responded by cance/­ were the d,~cisive gateway to the electorate. A national ling all discussion of the conlMlS and passing its own campaign consisted largely of drawing the state organizations resolution closing offall outside testimony on all topics. It together to deliver what they could to the nalional ticket. now plans nojurther studyojGOP structure and nojurther Manufacturers associations. large corporations and other action in juf/illment oj the Com'ention Resolution. interest groups worked at the national level mainly through According to Rule 190 oj the GOP Rules, the RNC is the state GOP leadership, so that the two states that had the ellfrusted with "the general monagemem ojthe Republican most prominent industrial might - New York and Ohio ­ Party . .. subject to direclionjrom the national com'emioll, " became the lynchpins of Republican national politics. fhus if seems fhat fhe RNC ",ollid be operating olltside its The decisiveness of party organization was evident within published authority in neglecting a study ojthis issue. each of the 48 states. Straight ticket voting was common, so that county-by-county presidential returns bore a close resemblance tothe returns in gubernatorial elections. Ticket­ splitting was a rare phenomenon. A the national level the basic structure orthe GOP has This is no longer the case. A new pattern was free to emerge not been given a thorough review since the introduction ohhe with the introduction of the secret or Australian ballot at the uniform victory bonus and the new national committee tum of the century. It became the clear wave of the future in structure in the call for the 1924 Convention. Since that time 1960, the first time there was a nationall y televised presiden­ two greal changes have occurred - one in political cam­ tial debate. From that election onward there began a period paigning, the other in party altitudes. Taken together, they when ticket-splitting became commonplace and national should occasion a change in the Coolidge-era philosophy of television e:~posure increasingly displaced state party delegate all ocation and national commiltee structure. organization as a decisive factor in detennining victory or de­ The coming year presents an historic opportunity to feat for the national ticket. Instead of patterns based on state reexamine such issues. A similarly suitable opportunity may patty strength, presidential returns now fall into broad regional not recur in this century. In the year remaining before the and demographic patterns that show no respect for state lines 1984 Convention the GOP has the good fortune of a sitting and no automatic congruence with other state-wide races. president and the prospect that he will continue for another State party organizations continue, of course, to play an term; there is a Supreme Court with a majority of Republican important role in increasing turnout. organi zing fund raising appointees: one of the two houses of the nationallegisiature is events. and doing advance work for appearances of the in Republican hands. At the federal level the Republican national nominees and their surrogates. But their decisive Party has not been in so strong a position relative to the role in dete m ~ i n i ng victory or defeat is a thing of the past. Democrats since the 1920s. There is. moreover, no divisive Instead of a presidential campaign be ing a from-the-bottom­ factional problem and no pendi ng litigation that might up affai r, wh{:re state and county organi zations were drawn compromise the party's abi lity to deal wit h structural matters. into a loose nla tional confederation, it is increasingly a top-

16 RIPON FORUM down effort. in which a centralized national staff makes the bonus of the 1924 GOP Convention was, as we shall see, a key decisions. The top-down approach now extends to the similar attempt to lock in an ethnic balance. RNC, whose staff increasingly is occupied with centralized In Coolidge's day such attitudes we re understandable. fundraising, advenising and polling. It even targets congres­ There had never ex isted in the history of the world a sional and mayoral elections in the off-years. democratic republic based'on the su pport of many different ethnic. racial and religious groups. Fear as to the prospects of "The most dramatic change in political a pluralist experiment could not seem as unfounded then as the y appear two generations and one World War later. So the campaigning since the Coolidge years has important thing to stress is not the bigotries ofthe past but the been in the role of the state parties. The thoroughgoing reversal of them today. This is made explicit second big change is the repudiation of in the Preamble to the Republican Rules, which closes the nativism - an amalgam of anti-Roman ism door on prejudices common in both parties two generations with ethnic prejudice. [Yet] do the ago. The principles enunciated in it mark the second great change from the Coolidge era - the finn and irreversible Republican Rules reflect these great changes repudiation of nativism. in campaign realities and party attitudes? Not adequately. " Two Throwbacks in the Rules

Do the Republican Rules reflect these great changes in The Repudiation of Nativism campaign realities and party attitudes? Not adequately. Two provisions of Rule 30 on delegate allocati on remain The second big change since the Coolidge years is the throwbacks to an earlier age. The first of these is the unifonn repudiation of nativism - an amalgam of anti-Romanism victory bonus, which was in fact a direct product of the 1924 with ethnic prejudice. Nativist feeling was high in both panies climate. The second is the presidential victory bonus propor­ in the early 1920s, though it was also countered with cross­ tioned to Electoral College vote. which perpetuates the cutting trends. In the Democratic Pany, Ku Klux Klan fiction that state party organizations rather than individual members were estimated to comprise a third of the delegates voters are now the crucial detenninants of Republican tothe national conventions in 1920 and 1924. though this did victory atlhe presidential level. In addition, the structure of not prevent the Democrats from nominating a Roman the RNC has been obviously outdated by the RNCs own Catholic presidential candidate by the required two-thirds deve lopment as the most technically sophisticated party vote in 1928. In the GOP, where the worth of each individual apparatus in the Free World. had always been a leading principle, the Klan was never a large factor. Nevertheless, prejudice took other, more legalistic The Uniform Victory Bonus forms that have remained an impediment to the party, especially in the Northeast quadrant of the country. In 1924 three delegates were added to a state's delegation, Perhaps the most innuential idea among Republicans and regardless of its size, if that state's electoral votes went to the intellectuals in the early 1920s was a novel theory that party nominee in the previous presidential election. The uni­ divided Europeans into three "races" - thedarkcr"Mediter­ fonnity of the reward skewed the convention toward the less raneans" stretching from Greece into Wales, the fa irer populous non-southern states, whose demographic character " Nordics" of northern Europe, and the sometimes blond, coincided most closely with the nativist ideaL This was a stan­ sometimes bruneue " Alpines" of Central and Eastem Europe dard device replicated at the state level, where counties were who could be distinguished from Nordics and Mediterraneans represented in party councils regardless of population. by their cranial measurements. Even without calipers. the For example, in Maine, the one state where a GOP guber­ " Alpines" could be known from their re li gion. since the line natonal candidate accepted a Ku Klux Klan endorsement in of division between Catholic and Protestant parts of Germany the 1920s, Cumberland County. which contained the city of conveniently corresponded to most versions of the so-called Portland with itS large Catholic population. was equall y •. racia]"' division. represented on the powerfu l state committee with the rural As part of the campaign for immigration restriction in the sparsely populated northern counties. Populous, polyglot years 1921 -1924, the view swept such leadingjoumals of Philadelphia County in Pennsylvania suffered from similar opinioo as The Saturday EI'ening POSI and the North Amedcan imbalance in Pennsylvania. even though the city was run by a Review that on ly the long-headed. Protestant Nordics were Republican machine until 1948. Even within counties. unit reliable supporters of American institutions. This theory systems for precincts of uneven size were common. Since the persuaded Calvin Coolidge, an otherwise li beral-minded and newer immigrant groups settled in the more populous (i.e .• cul tivated man, who spent his leisure hours translating Dante. urban) counties of the more populous states, the party " Biological laws show ... ," he wrote during this period. systematicall y under-represented them. ··that Nordics deteriorate when mixed with other raccs."1 Such On the state and county levels these provisions are a thing sentimentS were the basis of the national origins quota of the of the past. By a combination of reform and litigation unit Immigration Act of 1924, which attempted to limit future devices that discriminate against minorities have either been immigration to northern Europe by moving back from 1910 eliminated from state organizations or subordinated to stan­ to 1890 the census reports on foreign stock that were to be the dards based on popu lation. Republ ican registration or benchmark for immigration quotas. The uniform victory Republican vote. ·The only major survival ofa discriminatory

-Tile only two stales whose GOP party oonvcnlions havc similar devices do not ha.·c the samc discriminatory cffect In Connccticut. where unifonn delegates are awarded. they come from districts ofequal population. [n sparsely Republican Arkansas. a county can get an extra delegate forclccting a GOP justice-of-the­ peacc. I. " The Republican Pany 1893-1932" by William H. Harbaugh in History' a/U.s. Political Panies. New yort. [973. vol. J, pg. 2114. APRIL 1983 17 unit bonus device in a GOP convention is in fact the unifonn As a defensive legal measure this was a masterstroke. victory bonus at the Republican National Convention. It Since federnl judges do not run for election. their knowledge wi ll account fo r over 300 delegates to the 1984 National of practical poli tics is invariably a generation out of date. The Convention. A state can now wi n up to nine un ifonn bonus proportiona I bonus drew on the textbook picture of a previous delegate s: 4. 5 for a presidential victory. one each for each generation in which state parties " deli vered" victory to the GOP Senator. governor. or majority control of a congressional ticket. delegation. (All frac tions are rounded to the higher integer.) "Leaving aside the legal vulnerability of the "Two provisions of Rule 30 on delegate party 's entitlement to f ederalfunding, is allocation remain throwbacks to an earlier there al.fy serious student or practitioner of age. The first of these is the uniform victory A merica'n politics who would argue that the bonus . •. The second is the presidential currel'll GOP bonuses provide effective victory bonus proportional LO Electoral incentives?" College vote. t t The authors of this device gauged their audience well. The Washington. D.C. Court of Appeals in fact cited a college G iven the discriminatory inte nt that surrounded the intr" textOOok dated in 1960 that described the national panics as duction of this device. it is important to ascertain whether it no more than "loose confederacies of state parties." And so still has a discrimi natory effect. The answer is that it most they were when the learned judges were in college. But certain ly does. Testimony presented to the 1980 Convention anyone whcl has studied a national campaign since 1960 Rules Committee shows that it still systematically under­ understands that they arc now centrally planned and represents states that contain a disproportionate number of orchestrated, with Slate panies playing a supportive rather so-called "outreach" voters - Roman Catholics. Jews. than a leadi.ng role. Asians, Hispanics and northern Blacks. The latter two Nevertheless. the Court of Appealsdid not entirely neglect groups were not originally intended as victims of the device. such factors. It left ope n the possibility thai campaign but have migrated into areas discrimi nated against. realities mig.h t change. " We must emphasize that this Jthe Even without taking ethnicity or rel igion into account the GOP's right under the First Amendment to choose the current bonus contains an unacceptable deviation from the formu la it didl is only true because the fonnula advances logic of the fede ral system. Under an Electoral College legitimate pHrty interests in political effectiveness. The same standard Republ icans in the smallest states would have as might not always hold true." The court also noted that the much as four times the weight as Republ icans in the largest. right of the GOP to federal funding might still be open to Under the current delegate allocation formula. howeVer, this li tigation. It noted (this being 1974) that the case of Buckley advantage regul arl y reaches seven to one. 1'. Va/eo had not yet been resolved and fe deral funding had The arithmetic is worth understanding. At a GOP conven­ not yet begun. and it then speculated as follows: " If the tion each state begins with th ree ti mes its Electoral College parties' conventions. and their candidates are to be so far vote in delegates. to which are then added various bonuses. A underwritten by the fede ral government. then perhaps they state like Alaska. with three electoral votes can "eam" up to must share its constitutional obligations." eleven bonus delegates. Its delegation can thus reach twenty Leaving a.side the legal vulnerability ofthe party's entitle­ (nine base plus cleven bonus). or 6.7 times its Electoral ment to federal fund ing. is there any serious student or practi+ Coll ege strength. California. by contrast. with 47 electoral tioner of American politics who would argue that the current votes. has a ceiling of 178 delegates ( 141 base plus 37 G OP bonuses provide effective incentives? Federal fu nding bonus), or 3.8 times its Electoral College vote. The Electoral itself has accd erated the growth of a very different reality from Coll ege already gives any voter at ra ndom in Alaska four the "loose confederacy of state parties" the GOP bonuses times the weigh t of one in California: the Republican presuppose. To ignore the new realities in apportioning dele­ National Convention increases this deviation by a further gates has an arbitrary. capricious and ultimately a demoralizing factor of I. 76 (6.7/3.8) to 7.0. That is. any voter at random effect on party organization. It rewards states for events from Alaska has seven times the weight at a G OP national beyond thei r control while neglecting the things they can convention of a voter from California. On convention innuence - long-tenn Republican loyalty and turnout. comm ittees. where all stales have equal representation, this Nor does il even perfonn the minimal discipl ini ngfunction weighting reaches a ratio of 63: I. as it docs on the RNC. of penalizing a state for third party defections. Compare, for example. Massachusetts with Nebraska. both of which The Proportional Victory Bonus qualify for the proportional bonus this year. In Massachusetts. where Anderson drew 20% of the vote in rural. suburban and Understandably, the uniform victory bonus has come exurban GOP counties. there were only two counties in under [egal challenge. The party convention of 1972 was which the Reagan-Bush ticket got more than 50% of the vote. under a federal district court inju nction to draft a new In Nebraska there were only three cou nties in which they got fonnula. The court order was stayed at the eleventh hour by less than 60% and many where their percentage exceeded Justice Rehnquist on the appeal of six Western state party 75%. Yet the proportional bonus is blind to these very chairmen. Nevertheless. the 1972 convention did draft a new substantial differences in party strength. fonnula which improved the legal viability of the old bonus in Finally. the proportional victory bonus violates the first fu ture litigation. The new fea tu re was to add to the unifonn requirement tor fair rules: thaI they not be consciously biased bonus a presidential victory bonus proponioned to Electoral against any r l ~g i on or faction. At the 1972 Convention. where Coll ege strengt h. A state gets a bonu s eq ui valent to 60% ofits the issue of d.elegate allocation came to a rare ro ll-call vote. Electoral College vote for " deli vering" to the ticket. Clark Reed of Mississippi stated publicly that the bonus

18 RIPO N FORUM would assure control of the party by the South and West Thus, Alaska and Vermont would still have three delegates indefinitely. The vote on the substitute formula proposed by but Illinois wou ld have 24, Tennessee II , and Maine four. the late Wisconsin Rep. William Steiger suggested that this The base of the RNC would be more than tripled from 150 perception was widespread. for the fifty states to 535. Since the RNC meets as a body As it now stands, the proportional bonus is a throwback to onl y once a year. this wou ld not pose any logistical a textrook party that no longer exists. It presupposes that the problem. But il wou ld mean that the large state delegations national party is a "loose confederacy of state parties" and would inelude blacks and Hispanics as voting members. rewards a kind of campaign that has not remotely ex i!ited for They would doubtless form caucuses to urge issues upon two decades and cannot be brought back. the pany as Republicans. At present the party must rely on the press and profe ssional Democrats for an assessment of RNC Structure its performance on issues of concern to minorities. The structure of the RNC contains some similarly amique "The RNC is the only slanding Republican and offensive features. The RNC is the onl y standing committee in the country in which population. Republican committee in the country in which population, Republican vote and Republican registration are entirely Republican vote and Republican registration excluded as bases of representation. Regardless of population, are entirely excluded as bases of every state has three votes. The argument that this structure representation . .. reflects that of the U.S. Senate neglects the fact (hat the Senate operates in tandem with the House of Representatives Moreover, an Electoral College standard wou ld give the and in balance with the presidency, while the RNC operates RNC legitimacy and dignity befiuing its new role as a "subjectto direction from the national convention," which is recipient of federal funds and as a pioneer in centralized itself mal apportioned with bonus devices. fund raising. advenising and campaigning. Its top-down technical role. which has developed in the past decade to " .. • the proportional victory bonus violales the envy ofthe Democrats, would justify a more representa­ the first requirement for fair rules: that they ti ve structure even if the current one were not offensive on other grounds. A legitimate structure for the RNC wou ld not be consciously biased againsl any r(~gion also give it the authority to counter the Democratic or faction. " National Committee, which is now able to set the national fas hion for presidential campaigning by usi ng its mid-Ierm To remedy the marked absence of urban groups that its convention to rewrite the requirements thai state legislatures structure preordains, the RNC has added over the years ex take into account in writing their primary laws. officio non-voting seats on its Executive Committee for one token black, one token Hispanic, and one token '; he:ritage" Delegate Allocation American (Eastern European or Asian). This year, it is proposed that there be added to this non-voting structure one For the delegate all ocation formu la the Electoral College loken Jew, one labor union representative, and one represen­ standard provides a similarly straightforward guide: make tative of Republicans Abroad. There is, of course, nothing each state's delegation a multiple of its Electoral College wrong with giving special recognition to GOP auxiliaries that vote. The onl y open question is how to cast the balance serve special constituencies, but not if the party structure between a --base" component derived from an exact discriminates against the members of these auxil iaries as mUl tiple of Electoral College strength and an "incentive" citizens and as Republicans. component, in which a state might fall very slightly above or below its Electoral College strength, depending on its A Party-Building Structure performance. During the period of its greatest success the GOP had no Let me sketch an alternative structure that meets the issues I incentive component at all, and there would be no objection have raised It returns the party to the Electoral Coll ege- system in principle to returning to the system under which the under which it compete.<; for the presidency and upon which its majority of the party's successful nomi nees were selected. national convention was founded. It ful fills the requirements But since there now seems to be a deeply rooted feeling that of the Preamble to the GOP Rules, which decl ares: the party convention should contain some form of incentive, let me suggest one that is both meaningful in terms of It is the intent and purpose of these rules to encourage practical politics and principled in terms or the aniculated the broadest possible participation of all voters in ideals of the party. To illustrate it. I shall show how any Republican Party activi ties at all leve ls and to assure mUltiple of 535 delegates might be apportioned among the that ... we are also the party of opportunity fo:r all; states. (For simplicity of presentation I shall leave to one opportunity for everyone of every race, religion, color, side the three additional Electoral votes of the District of national origin, age or sex ... for minorities and heritage Columbia, the special status of the terri tories, and the groups, and for all Americans ... in all sections ofthe problem of Nebraska's unicameral legislalUre, but these country, North, South, East. and West. can obviously be dealt with in accordance with proposals made by others.) And it sets up a system that provides meaningful incentive to The proposal is based on a two-pronged substitution for state and local parties. the existing bonus formu la: For the RNC the Electoral College standard has 11 simple First, the new proposal substitutes a turnout or "open application: expanding the body so that each state has an party" bonus based on Republican vote for president in RNC delegation equivalent 10 its Electoral College strength. three elections for the current proportional bonus based on

APRIL 1983 19 victory in a single election. Second. it recasts the old nativist unifonn bonuses as an " achievement bonus" " The cu"ent 60% all-or-nothing victory attuned to the Electoral College standard. The Preamble to the Rules calls the GOP '"the party of bonus would be replaced with an 'open-party' the open door:' To fulfill this aim it is important that every or turnout bonus based on Republican Republican voter fee l that he or she is specificaJl y recognized presitfential vote over three elections . .. by the national convention , that loyalty, turnout and participation arc directly rewarded, regardless of whether the party carries a state. This reinforces the spirit that state Taken to,ge ther the twO aspects of the proposed party­ parties can successfully encourage with computerized building txmus system encourage balanced, long-tenn canvassing techniques. grass TOOts organization. and attrac­ growth of the GOP. They necessari ly reduce the propor­ tive local candidates and issues. tional stake of small State delegations to comport with the Preamble. but still gi ve them significantly more weight than "Let me sketch an alternative structure that in the Democratic National Convention. which is skewed to meets the issues I have raised. It returns the a one person, one vote rather than an Electoral College standard. party to the Electoral College standard under The balance between the incentive and base components which it competes for the presidency and of this fonnilia can be struck in various ways, depending on upon which its national convention was the size of the convention. A Convention fixed at five times founded. t. the Electoral College votes of the states could have three parts base (as in the current fonnula) and two parts To this end, the current 60% all-or-nothing victory bonus incentive (or double the proponions proposed here). As a would be replaced with an "open party" or turnout bonus practical matter. assuring the small states a delegation no based on Republican presidential vote over three elections. smaller than in lhe 1984 Convention would probably be useful The allocation of delegates would follow the pattern for for putting

20 RIPON FORUM THE CHAIRMAN'S CORNER: P ACs Americana

by Jim Leach

A erica's political tradition is perhaps best expressed Congress - who ror most orthe past thirty years have been by theologian Reinhold Niebuhr who wrote that " the temper Democrats. and the integrity with which the political fight is waged is It may be debatable how nerarious or constructive PAC morc important for the health of our society than any participation has been in recent campaigns, but irthe growing particular policy." roleorPACs is a guide to the ruture. it would appear that both Against this cultural backdrop it is difficult for Americans labor and business are girding ror ruture political campaigns nOI to be disheartened by the revelations that an estimated which in quantum magnitUde arc likely to be more expensive $80 million of special interest money was distributed to than any Americans have experienced. candidates in the last congressional election. At issue in an immediate sense is the ability of Congress to effectively Congressional Indebtedness address public problems. At issue in the largest sense is how the democratic process works. Irthis trend towards more expensive races and thus heavier Special interest campaign contributions are distributed financial obligations ror candidates is not curbed, individuals primarily through legal entities know as political action elected to the Congress orthe United States will increasingly committees or PACs. While not an unprecedented pheno­ become indebted to either big business or big labor. Congress menon in U.S. political history, PACs through sheer size will become a legislative body where the small businessman, have taken on a new dimension in the last decade. Now one or the ranner, the laborer and ordinary citizen arc only America's largest growth industries. PACs have grown sixrold in number and tenrold in dollar contributions since 1972. "The roots of economic misery begin in Virtually all labor unions and several thousand business federal spending and federal spending begins and trade associations sponsor PACs, asdomany liberal and in promises and obligations, and all this conservative causes. The vast majority represent only a narrow rraction or the public viewpoint. The wide ranging begins with politicians. It begins in the way economic. social and roreign policy concerns orthe common campaigns are run, in politics as usual; in citizen are seldom the "raison d'etre" or any PAC. The commitments to large contributors, no matter totality or PAC contributions renect a spectrum or special who they are. ,. interests which not inrrequently are at variance with one another, but PACs make no pretense or representing a rull spectrum or societal concerns. Unmoneyed interests simply secondarily represented. In ract, it is no accident today that aren't represented by moneyed PACs. the middle class rrequently bears a heavier tax burden than Several or the largest PACs - those associated with the the rich; that small companies lack the tax advantages orthe American Medical Association, the National Association or integrated oil companies; that discussion in Congress or tax Realtors, the National Conservative Political Action Com­ policy all too often lack rererence to tax equity; and that mittee (NCPAC) and the United Auto Workers - contri­ unemployment is the economic issue or the day. buted several million dollars each in the 1982 election. Oil The last point should be stressed: unemployment is not and gas PACs contributed more money to candidates than unrelated to campaign financing abuses. did the Democratic National Committee. But it is a myth to The roots or economic misery begin in rederal spending assume that the Republican Party is the primary beneficiary and rederal spending begins in promises and obligations, and or PAC giving. Actually, the primary beneficiaries are one all this begins with politicians. h begins in the way campaigns definable group - incumbents. Whereas labor is partisanly are run, in politics as usual; in commitments to large oriented, runding Democrats by a 20 to I margin, business contributors, no mauer who they are. interests arc more power oriented and generally divide their C urrently the most effective way ror a congressional contributions about evenly between the parties. The largest candidate to achieve support is to isolate every identifiable recipients arc invariably the most powerful members or group - especially moneyed groups - and announce

APRil 1983 21 support for that group's vested interests. But going along with the most powerful interest groups inevitably leads either to the proliferation offedcral programs or the weakening of the tax structure. Fiscal balance and equitability are impossible to maintain after lawmakers. that is. the successful candidates, have committed themselves in advance to support specific tax advantages or government programs favoring w®~ those having made generous campaign contributions. America may be a society of individuals. but power groupings - not individuals - are represented in legislatures where money is the key determinant of election outcome. QQWI@r~ ~%\h~~\t. , o o "If PA C funding ballies go unchecked, it is quile conceivable that American political parties could increasingly become copies of European parties. and that group self-interest rather than individual views will be fought out in the electoral process. ••

Unfortunately. groups seldom reflect the same collecti ve judgment as all their members. This is particularly true in labor unions where labor PAC funds go almost exclusivel y to candidates of one political party. but where in many instances almost half the actual members hip vote goes to candidates of the other. This problem is not exclusively one of labor Icadership being out of step with membership. It is also true in many farm and corporate organizations where reflected in the legislative process. As today's candidates individual farmers and corporate executives oppose the very become increasingly dependent on special interest contribu­ candidates who the managers of their PACs support. ti ons. however, constituencies become gerrymandered along This membership-leadership divergence of judgment is interest group lines. In nationalizing fundin g sources. PACs natural and largely irreconcilable since uniformity of views have the effect of nationalizing electoral input. In smaller regarding political parties and candidates is not a hallmark of states particularly, Senate races have been disproportionately any part of the American economic system. If PAC funding national ized by interest groups in recent elections. Those battles go unchecked, however. it is quite conce ivable that who control PACs understand. for instance. that a South American political part ies could increasingly become copies Dakota senator's vote carries as much weight as a California of European panies. and that group self· interest rather than senator·s. Thus rural states like South Dakota have found individual views will be fought out in the electoral process. more money spent per voter than larger urban states. and frequently this money reflects interest groups' concerns alien to the state itself. The citizens of smaller states therefore run the ri sk of becoming disenfranchised as their candidates PAC Power Brokers: Centralized Decision-Making develop effecti ve indebtedness to out-of-state concerns - an issue often ignored by those defending the constitutional rights of PACs.

Politics for Profit Moreover. with regard to those who argue that PACs serve to involve more people in the democratic process. one should But attempts to influence the outcome of governmental stress that PAC decison-making is often centralized. Indivi­ decisions through the distribution of money is not new to duals who control other people's money become power American democracy. What appears to be new is the use. brokers in an elitist society. Their views. not those of the particul arly by ideological P ACs. of political issues for profit. small contributors to their PACs, become the views that The ideological PACs have in recent years used mass mail carry influence. techn iques to raise impressive sums of money. the pre· Most unfortunately. the perspective of power brokers who ponderance of which goes to pay overhead rather than to control PAC funds is frequently that of out-of-state interests advance the causes espoused. which have little to do with the concerns of individual The New Right PACs run by Jesse Helms (National constituents. Our forefathers designed a representative Congressional C lub). Terry Dolan ( NCPAC) and Paul democracy for America - a democracy where the particular Wcyrich (Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress) views of every state and congressional district would be rai sed almost $2 1.000.000 in the 1981 -82 election cycle.

22 RIPON FORUM but distributed only $486.028. or 2.3 percent, directly to demands that restraint be placed on the capacity, through candidates. and $2.936,000. or 14 percent, as independent hefty campaign contri butions, of a few large interests to expenditures for or against candidates. The remainder is influence political decision· making. basicaJly accounted for as overhead costs of the organizations What is needed is legislation capping. or preferably or as the cost of contracting with Richard Viguerie's direct eliminating entirely, special interest group giving in campaigns. mail company. The New Right lacks a Don Quixote. Causes T he current fundraising system would be replaced with a appear to be espoused more as fundraising gimmicks than partial public funding approach, perhaps involving a fonnula societal ills to be righted. This bleeding of the body politic by whereby public funds arc used to match private in-state the New Right is a national scandal. as is the ruinously contributions to candidates. This type of domestic SALT divisive tone set by the sophisticated New Right fundraisers agreement between big business and labor is likely to be in their direct mail solicitations. disliked by each. bul it should work to the stark advantage of Ideological PACs on the Left. such as the National the individual citizen and taxpayer. Committee for an Effective Congress and the League of What is also needed is increased public attention to be Conservation Voters, also distributed only a fraction of focused on the tactics of the ideological PACs. The spotlight moneys raised. but their fundrais ing efforts were substantially of decency and tolerance should be turned on lhose who more limited in scope. Interestingly. both Walter Mondale attempt to pick the pocket of concerned citizens by and Edward Kennedy operated personal PACs during the accentuating the negative. last election wh ich raised s lightly in excess of $2 million America has always stood as a land of hope and opportunity. each. Mondale's Committee for the Future of A merica Inc. Those who play on the fea rs rather than the aspirations of distributed $166.433 and Kennedy's Fund for a Democratic citizens should not be rewarded in the political process. In Majority gave $1 77 .355 to Democraticcandidates-sums politics. as in sjX)r1S, it docs matter how you play the game. • equal to about 8 percent of funds raised. Onc feature of PACs controlled for presidential candidates Jim Leach. a member o/Collgress/rom /Oll'a, is chairmall giving to congressional and senatorial candidates that touches a o/the Ripon Society. A portioll o/thiscolumll will beprillled sensitive nerve in the political process is the political conflict in a/orthcomillg article ill USA TODA Y magazille.e 1983 of interest which develops for those congressional candidates who accept such funds. In future presidential primaries. they embrace a set of UMITED EDlnONS implicit obligations to candidates of their party not dissimilar For a limited lime. books published by the Ripon Society to the obligations legislators (i.e .. the successful candidates) which provide a historical perspective on still plaguing develop to interest groups who contribute to their campaigns. issues are available for purchase. These collector's items are A congressman or congressional candidate is usually the now be:ing offered al a discount price of$6 each or $20 for most influential political figure in a congressional district. the ad of fout'. These include: sometimes to the point of controlling the party structure for The Ripon Papen. 1963-1968 the 505.000 people who compose the average district. If a A compilation of various Ripon research papers focusing particular candidate accepts a substantial contribution from a on moderate GOP issues and providing specific suggestions presidential candidate's PAC. it becomes difficult if not fo r a number of foreign and domestic policy concerns. unseemly for thai candidate to support another presidential The Realitiu of Vietnam candidmc for his party. Published in 1968. this in·depth analysis of the realities and priorities of the Vie tnam conflict. complete with a widelY'acclaimed solution. provides an in triguing perspec­ tive in light of the conflict' s final results. It has special ••H'hat is needed is legislation capping. or meaninl!i! given the current struggles in Central America . preferably eliminating entirely. special Instead of Revolution A working paper on how to change "the system" from imerest group giving in campaigns. The within. written during the heydays of the 1960s. The GOP current fundraising system should be has problems which cannot be deni ed. but Instead of replaced with a partial public financing Revolution claims that these problems can be solved from approach . .. within instead of by overthrowing the entire system J.ws of Victory A well-documented analysis of the 1972 Watergate-era. the effect this had on the Republican Party and the fut ure of In the cases of Mondale and Kennedy. both appeared to be the American Constitut ion. looking over each other's s houlder as they raised and disbursed equal amounts of money to candidates. The Included with these books are in troductions by Majority interest groups who contributed to their PACs also appeared Leader Howard Baker. Senator Mark O. Hatfield. and Representatives Tim Petri and Paul Findley. to be treating each other equally. Now, with Kennedy's withdrawal from the 1984 primaries, Mondale has a signifi. To take advantage of th is limited offer. please send your cantlegupon all other contenders. Early. well-placed money name, address and check to: cannot be underestimated. Candidates remember. The Ripon Society Conclusion 41 9 New Jersey Avenue. S.E. Washington. D.C. 20003 Certainly no legislative process can ever be perfect. Nor can decisions always be wi se. But the public interest

APRtL 1983 23 419 New Jersey Avenue

Political Noles struggle over the statc's party chairmanship quite important. A majority of the Stale Republican Executive Committee have Pennsy lvania's GOP Governor Richard Thornburgh has called requested the resignation of the present head. Chet Upham. But for an emergency reserve of$300 million over the next two years to Upham. who announced for Gerald Ford during the 1976 Texas assist unemployed workers and distressed family farmers against primary much to the chagrin of Tens Reagan supporters. has said the "extraordinary hardship" of mortgage foreclosures. Thornburgh"s he will remain on until his teon ends in F all 1984. The next " Hand Up" program is part ora balanced budget he has proposed eighteen months, therefore. will indicate Ihe direction that party and will be funded with surplus revenues from the sL1tC'S Loltery Fund. will take. If single-issue conservatives capture the tOp spot. then What's unique about this is that the mooerale Republican's fiscal thc party. somc think. will never again gain a serious hearing .. management has allowed Pennsylvania 10 meet human needs while still holding sales and income tax rates level. Other Midwesu:m states under Democratic governors. however. have nOi been so Ripon Act ivities fortunate. Instead. the citizens of Ohio are now faced wi th their single-largest tax increase ever. a 90 percent rise in the state income The Ripon Society's annual Republican of the Year Award Din­ tax. The genius of Democratic Governor Richard Celeste. it is ner will be held in Was hington the second week of June. Former similar to tax increases proposed in Wisconsin by fellow Democrat executive director Rick Kessler is chairing the event and welcomes Anthony Earl. JUSI recently elected governor. Earl has already suggestions for individuals to serve on the dinner's Steering Com­ secured passage of tax hikes to meet budget deficits. mittee, If interested. please contact the Ripon national office. Wiseonsin Republican Tony Roth apparently will be challenged (202) 546-1292. More details will be furnished later ... again by Democrat Ruth C lusen for his 8th Congressional District The Ripon Society has joined the Citizens Against Nuclear scat. C lusen already has been encouraged by Earl, who recently War (CAN), a coalition of 42 organizations in opposition to a appointed her to a state commision, thus allowing her to remain in nuclear arms buildup. The Society has been active in the the public's eye. Such moves ha ve caused some 10 speculate that organization's activities, SUbmitting a letter in March lothe House C lusen will chalJenge Ihe three-leon incumbent in 1984 .. , Foreign Affairs Committee in support of the Contc-Markey Michigan Forum correspondent John Hagen reports that the nuclear freeze resolution . . Michigan GOP has finally resolved its leadership woes. Spencer The District of Columbia Ripon chapter met in late March to Abraham was recently elected state party chairman. dcfeating hear PAC representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. conservative Ri chard Chrysler and moderate Ranny Ri ecker. The the National Association of Home Builders and the Busi ness· 3 I -year pollster now faces a formidable challenge in restoring the Industry PAC discuss the role of political action committees. Michigan party. which has lost its 20-year hold on the governor's Each speaker agreed that it will be harder for business candidates office and the patronage avai lable to it ... to get money early for 1984 and that Democrats will probably Connecticut's Michael Lewyn reports that the Connecticut receive more business support during the next election ... Republican Party has elected a new state chair of its own. rormer The Ripon Society of New York has elected Bill Lithgow as its Lowell Weickercampaign manager Tom D'Amore. It seems Con· president. replaci ng Mark Uncapher who will become the Society's necticut Republicans are uniting behind D'Amote in hopes of binding policy chairman. Lithgow has been quite active in Ripon, serving up some of the wounds left over from last year's senatorial primary. as national treasurer the last two years .. In fact. Republicans in the state Senate have selected a moderate as The Harvard Chapter has also concluded its elections with minority leader. Phillip Robertson of Cheshire will replace George Michael Malamut being chosen president. Douglas Lister \'icc­ Gunther, minority leader last session who was defeated by president and J ack Robinson secretary-treasurer. The newly Robertson ., . elected president of the Drake Ripon Society is Peter Brown. The Minnesota's Rudy Boschwl tz will face in 1984 what one lOCal chapter has been holding weekly meetings. bri nging in both pol has called an "uphill baltic" in retaining hi s U.S. Senate seat. professors and local politicians to address the group. The chapter Boschwitz. a moderate Republican. already has tough competition also hopes to begin a nationwide student newsletter reporting on lining up. with the most likely challengers being former Minnesota moderate GOP student activiti es, .. Governor Wendell Anderson. Rep. Jim Oberstar and 1982 These activities match interest recently expressed by moderate Democrat-Farm-Labor Senate nominee Mark Dayton. But some Republicans in Illinois and Michigan who wish to form Ripon Minnesotans think that Dayton is taking a terrible risk in running chapters there. If interested in this, please contact G reg Knopp at so soon after he spent seven million dollars in losing 10 progressive the Ripon national office ... Republican David Durenberger in their 1982 Senate contest ... Masu Dyer of the Hawa iian Ripon chapter reports that whilc Last November's defeat ofTuas Governor William Clements Hawaii's GOP more closely renects the state's ethnic population was particularly devastating to that state's GOP. reports Texas than it did a generation ago. the FORUM must stand corrected in FORUM correspondent Michael Hayes. Thus. the 1984 elections reporting recently thaI the Hawaiian GOP has gained in elecloral will be especially crucial in deteonining whether Texas wi ll strength. Republicans still comprise less than 20 percent of all develop as a true two-party state or remain a Democratic preserve clecled officials, Dyer reports. and Democrats hold ncarly every with small pockets of GOP strength. This makes the current major office. Our regrets!! •

24 RIPON FORUM