-The amount appropriated should be adequate to defray key items of expense to carry a campaign to the public and thus be limited to the following items: radio and television, newspaper and periodical advertising, the preparation and distribution of campaign literature, and travel.

-The amount of the fund for the major parties as finally determined by the Congress, would be divided equally between them.

3. Private contributions for major parties could not be used for those items of expense to which public funds could be applied.

Private contributions, however, could be used to defray the costs of other campaign expenses. These would include the salaries of campaign workers, overhead, research and polls, telegraph and telephone, postage and administrative expenses.

Citizens who want to make contributions to the party or candidate of their choice will be free to do so. Party workers at the grass roots will be able to pursue their neighborhood activities, a responsibility which is deeply woven into the fabric of American political tradition.

But under the measures I have proposed, the major burden of raising money for soaring campaign costs will be lifted from a Presidential candidate's shoulders. No longer will we have to rely on the large contributions of wealthy and powerful interests.

4. A "major party" should be defined as one which received 25% or more of the popular votes cast in the last election.

A percentage-of-votes test is more realistic than the fixed number of votes (15 million) now in the present law. It recognizes our growing population with more Americans entering the voting ranks each year.

5. A "minor party" should be defined as one which received between 5% and 25%

of the popular votes cast in the current election.

For the same reasons I described above, the eligibilty test for Federal support should not be based on a fixed number of votes (5 million for "minor parties" in the current law), but rather on the percentage of votes received.

Third party movements can support the rich diversity of American political life. At the same time some reasonable limitations should be developed so that Federal financial incentives are not made available to parties lacking a modicum of public support-or created solely to receive Government funds.

Under this proposal, “minor parties" would receive payments based on the number of votes they receive in the current election. The payment for each vote received by a minor party would then be determined so as to be the equivalent of that made to the major parties.

For example, assume that two major parties received a total of 80 million votes in a prior election, and Congress had ap propriated a $40 million campaign fund for those two parties. Although the major par ties would share equally in that fund ($20) million each), the allocation would amount to 50 cents per vote cast for those parties. Using the 50 cents per vote as the guideline, a minor party receiving 5 million votes in the current election would be entitled to $2.5 million for its recognized campaign

expenses.

6. A "minor party" should be eligible for reimbursement promptly following an election.

A "minor party" should be able to qualify promptly for federal funds, based on its showing in the current election, rather than waiting four years until the next election. This added source of funds should enhance a minor party's opportunity to bring its pro

grams and platforms into the public arena.

7. The percentage of federal funds received by a major or minor party which could be used in any one state should be limited to 140 percent of the percentage the population of that state bears to the popula tion of the country.

This would prevent the concentration of funds in any particular State and would minimize the ability of national party officials to reduce the role and effectiveness of local political organizations. At the same time, it would retain the flexibility necessary to carry a party's programs to the public. The Comptroller General should be empowered to issue rules for the equitable allocation, on a geographic basis, for national campaign expenses, such as network television.

8. The Comptroller General should be required to make a full report to the Congress as soon as practicable after each Presidential election.

This report should include:

-payments made to each party from the
fund;

-expenses incurred by each party;
-any misuse of the funds.

9. The Comptroller General should be given clear authority to audit the expenses of Presidential campaigns.

It is imperative that the strictest controls be exercised to safeguard the public interest. The General Accounting Office is the arm of the Government which I believe is best suited to monitor the expenditures of the fund.

Payments from the fund would be made only upon the submission of certified vouchers to the Comptroller General.

If the Comptroller General's audit reveals any improper use of funds, the following sanctions would be applied:

-the amounts involved would have to be repaid to the Treasury; and

-if the misuse is willful, a penalty of up

to 50 percent of the amount involved would be imposed.

10. To bring greater wisdom and experience to the administration of the act, the Comptroller General's special Advisory Board on the Presidential Election Campaign Fund should be expanded from 7 to 11 members.

This Advisory Board is faced with a heavy and demanding task. It must "counsel and assist" the Comptroller General in the performance of his duties under the Act.

The membership of the Board now consists of two members from each major political party and three additional members. I recommend that the Board be enlarged to encompass the wisdom and experience of 4 distinguished Americans:

-The Majority Leader of the Senate -The Minority Leader of the Senate -The Speaker of the House of Representatives

-The Minority Leader of the House

11. Criminal penalties should be applied for the willful misuse of payments received under the Act by any person with custody of the funds.

The penalties should be a fine of not more than $10,000, or 5 years imprisonment, or both. Criminal penalties would also be applied against any person who makes a false claim or statement for the purpose of obtaining funds under the Act.

OTHER CAMPAIGN FINANCING

We should also seek ways to provide some form of public support for Congressional, state and local political primaries and campaigns.

Here, the need is no less acute than at the Presidential level. But the problems involved are as complex as the elections themselves,

which vary from district to district and con

test to contest.

Because the uncertainties in this area are so very great, and because the issues have not received the benefit of the extensive debate that has characterized Presidential campaign financing, I pose for your consideration and exploration a series of alternatives.

In 1961, President Kennedy appointed a distinguished, bipartisan Commission on Campaign Costs to take a fresh look at the problems of financing election campaigns. Although the Commission devoted its attention to the problems of campaign costs for Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, it pointed out that the measures proposed "would have a desirable effect on all political fund raising."

The Commission's 1962 report and recommendations were endorsed by Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Harry S. Truman as well as leading Presidential candidates in recent elections.

Based on the Commission's recommendations and the later reviews and studies of campaign financing, there are several alternatives which should be considered. These alternatives all involve public financing of campaigns to a greater or lesser extent. Among them are:

-A system of direct appropriations, patterned after the recommendations made herein for Presidential campaigns, or modeled after recommendations pending in the Congress.

certificates for small amounts could be mailed to citizens who, in turn, would send them to candidates or committees of their choice. These vouchers could then be redeemed from public funds, and the funds used to defray specified campaign expenditures.

I believe these deserve serious attention along with other proposals previously recommended and suggested to the Congress. Each alternative offers particular advantages. Thorough review may reveal that one is to be clearly preferred over the others, or that still other courses of action are appropriate. Whatever the outcome, any such review should reflect a realistic assessment of the amount of funds needed in these campaigns and the extent to which the funds should be provided by public means.

I recommend that Congress undertake such a review.

I have asked the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General to cooperate fully with the Congress in its exploration of these alternatives in order to give all the help the Executive Branch can to the Congress as it seeks the best congressional election campaign financing program.

These recommendations represent my thoughts on the issues at stake. I believe they highlight the problems in an area so new and complex that there is little experience in our national life to guide us.

I hope that these proposals will serve as guidelines for discussion and debate in the coming weeks. A penetrating and orderly review of these vital public issues, with all the wisdom that the Congress can summon, will in itself be an important educational process for the nation in the art of government and politics.

I hope that Congress will proceed to con

sider promptly the problem of campaign financing and will enact appropriate legislation.

I make no recommendation as to the effective date with respect to such legislation. I leave that entirely to the judgment and wisdom of the Congress. I have no desire to ask that the provisions be made applicable to any campaign in which I may be involved. On the other hand, I have no desire to request that any such campaign be exempted from modernizing legislation which Congress might enact.

Public financing of political campaigns presents the American people with an issue. that is both significant and complex-departing as it does from the familiar practices of the past. It transcends partisan political considerations. I urge the American people and the Congress to consider this issue thoughtfully, on its merits, and on the highest and most objective plane, independent of any personalities now in office or seeking office.

IV. STRENGTHENING FEDERAL REGULATION OF LOBBYING

Full disclosure can serve the integrity of government in another important area-the regulation of lobbying.

Lobbying dates back to the earliest days of our Republic. It is based on the constitutionally guaranteed right of the people to petition their elected representatives for a redress of grievances.

Yet to realize the American ideal of Government, our elected representatives must be able to evaluate the varied pressures to which they are regularly subjected. In 1946, Congress responded to this need by enacting the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act. Its purpose was not to curtail lobbying but to regulate it through disclosure. For the first time, individuals and groups who directly

attempted to influence legislation were required to register.

More than twenty years of experience with the Act have highlighted its flaws. Through loopholes in the law, immune from its registration provisions, have passed some of the most powerful, best financed and best organized lobbies. Although engaged in constant and intensive lobbying, they are not legally required to disclose their exist ence-because lobbying is not their "principal" purpose, the narrow test under current law.

The Congress has properly taken the initiative to meet this problem. Two months ago, the Senate passed S. 355 by a decisive. vote. In that measure, Federal regulation of lobbying has been strengthened by:

-Supplanting the "principal purpose"

test with the broader test of "substantial purpose," thus extending the reach of the Act by a wider definition of those required to register.

-Transferring the responsibility for administration of the law from the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate to the Comptroller General.

I strongly endorse the Senate's action in strengthening Federal regulation of lobbying as an important step toward better Government, and I urge the House to take similar action.

V. THE RESIDENCY VOTING ACT OF 1967

Voting is the first duty of democracy. H. G. Wells called it, "Democracy's ceremonial, its feast, its great function."

This Nation has already assured that no man can legally be denied the right to vote because of the color of his skin or his economic condition. But we find that millions of Americans are still disenfranchised-because they have moved their residence from

one locality to another.

Mobility is one of the attributes of a free society, and increasingly a chief characteristic of our Nation in the 20th Century. More American citizens than ever before move in search of new jobs and better opportunities.

For a mobile society, election laws which impose unduly long residence requirements are obsolete. They serve only to create a new class of disenfranchised Americans.

An analysis of the 1960 election, the last election for which studies are available, shows that between 5 and 8 million otherwise eligible voters were deprived of the right to vote because of unnecessarily long residency requirements in many of the states. Almost half the states, for example, through laws a century old, require a citizen to be a resident a full 12 months before he can vote even in a Presidential election.

These requirements diminish democracy. The people's rights to travel freely from State to State is constitutionally protected. The exercise of that right should not imperil the loss of another constitutionally protected right-the right to vote.

I propose the Residency Voting Act of 1967 which provides that a citizen, otherwise qualified to vote under the laws of a state, may not be denied his vote in a Presidential election if he becomes a resident of the state by the first day of September preceding the election.

VI. CONCLUSION

Seventy years ago, the great American historian Frederick Jackson Turner wrote these words:

"Behind institutions, behind constitutional forms and modifications, lie the vital forces that call these organs into life and shape them to meet changing conditions. The peculiarity of American institutions is the fact that they have been compelled to adapt themselves to the changes of an expanding people...."

This represents a valid exposition of the vitality of our democratic process as it has endured for almost two hundred years.

Over those two centuries Presidents and Congresses have strengthened that process. as changing circumstances presented the clear need to do so. History has spared few generations that continuing obligation.

Today, that obligation poses for us the requirement—and the opportunity as well— to bring new strength to the processes which underlie our free institutions.

It is in keeping with this obligation that I submit the proposals in this Message. LYNDON B. JOHNSON

The White House May 25, 1967

NOTE: Election reform legislation was not enacted during the first session of the 90th Congress.

knowledge that this is your centennial anniversary-serves to heighten my interest.

My first trip outside of the United States after I became President was to visit Canada. That was to Vancouver, where we met with Prime Minister Pearson to proclaim the