4
Wednesday, February 18, 1976
University Daily Kausan
KANSAN Comment
Opinions on this page reflect only the view of the writer.
One primary enough
On Feb. 24, the New Hampshire primary will set off a whirlwind that will take candidates through 31 primaries in five months. By the time the contest begins of the candidates will be physically exhausted and financially depleted.
One method thru has been suggested to help calm down the process would allow for a national primary in early August. Nominees from each political party would be selected by direct popular vote of the people in all 50 states. If no candidate received as much as 40 per cent of the vote, there would be a run-off election 28 days later between the top two contenders. National conventions would select vice presidential candidates and adopt platforms.
THE NATIONAL PRIMARY would make the presidential selection process more representative of the people's will. This year 19 states, including Kansas, won't have any kind of primary. The delegates will be selected by a committee to be elected in nominating conventions and the common voter will have little, if any, say in the process.
In the states that have primaries, there is no guarantee that all the candidates will be on the ballot. When two primaries occur on the same day or in a different state, they may decide to devote all his efforts to one and not even enter the other.
FINANCES PLAY a large role in determining which primaries a candidate will enter. The campaign spending law has set limits on how much one candidate, who accepts federal matching funds, may spend in each state. The limit is based on the number of applications from $200,000 in smaller states to more than $2 million in California and New York.
If a candidate entered every state primary, the total cost could come to
$19.5 million. But the overall national spending limit is $10 million, so candidates must decide which primaries they wish to enter. When potential voters have been selected, the voter may be unable to express his choice unless write-ins are allowed.
A NATIONAL primary would help uncomplicate the system. The candidates who meet the requirements will be listed on the ballots in all 50 states. Also, the candidates won't have to run from one state to another during the campaign. We've moved more Instead we develop a national campaign that probably wouldn't last as long and maybe wouldn't place the voter in a state of apathy by mid-March.
The advocates of the convention selection system use the argument that a national primary would force candidates to rely more heavily on television coverage and there would be less personal candidate-voter contact. With the increase in assassination attempts, maybe a small decrease in personal contact wouldn't be that bad. Besides, in Kansas the ordinary voter has no say in the nomination process. Wouldn't the decrease in hand shakes and kissed babies be made up for by the increase in voter choice?
The idea of a national primary certainly isn't a new one. It developed originally during the Progressive Party movement of the early 1980s, which also proposed the recall of public officials and the direct election of United States senators. Although progress has been made in other areas, the nomination of candidates for the highest office in the land has for the most part been left in the hands of a few party regulars. Maybe during the next four years, steps will be taken toward developing a saner system of presidential election.
By Marne Rindom Contributing Writer
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) born 15 months ago during a post-Watergate period, will only care for a couple of weeks to live.
Earlier this month, as part of a far reaching and somewhat confusing decision on the U.S. Supreme Court gave Congress 30 days to restructure the young federal agency. Because Congress has lost quite a bit of its reformist zeal and the Senate's war against Senators and Congressmen have been offended by what they consider to be the agency's arrogant and high-handed manner, it seems very likely that senators will just let the diey die.
IF THE FEC, which is supposed to supervise and enforce the 1974 reforms, dies, odds are that the reforms will also die. If they do, the Campaign Reform Law of 1974 will be just another one of those well informed ideas that didn't work out.
The idea did have a healthy and optimistic start. The law, which was passed in October 1974, was intended to end the kind of undercover big-money campaign contributions that would allow them to usually lump together under the watergate.
IT WAS ALSO intended to equalize the spending of a marketing campaign, thus end the possibility that a candidate could buy his way into office through an overload advertising campaign.
Election watchdog needed
The bill isn't a week one. It requires frequent financial reports from all candidates. It requires a candidate can spend. Under it, presidential candidates can spend a maximum of $10 million
The law also provides for
Caucuses decisive in '76
selection that seem to favor liberal, insurgent candidate
Most of the attention in this year's presidential campaign is centered on states with primaries. But if the campaigns are as close together they seem now, the debates could be influential, caucuses could be influential,
Party regulars and state leaders are much more important in the Republican caucuses.
This year President Gerald R. Ford and former Georgia Gov. George W. Bush would campaign in all the caucus states. Fred Harris is trying to get off to a good start in the race against campaign from fizzling out.
In 1972 McGovern benefited from the new minorities, women and young delegates. This year the rules have been changed somewhat, but affirmative action guidelines are still affecting the composition of delegations. With several liberal candidates in the field, McGovern might be bely any one candidate much.
CAUCUSES HAVE been heavily criticized, especially by candidates who don't get many
SINCE 1968, caucuses have declined in popularity and changed in character, especially for the Democrats. More than one half the vote came from caucus states that the Democrats leaders had considerable influence over them. The Democrats have since adopted rules regarding delegate
The Democrats will choose 24 per cent of their delegates in nonpriinary states and the Republicans per cent of the caucuses. George McGovens's campaign received a great deal of momentum from the caucus states. The other candidates, including mention of Henry "Scoop" Jackson, did poorly in the caucuses.
By JOHN HICKEY Contributing Writer
These rules will decrease the likelihood of large uncommitted delegations or of favorite sons, to campainment in cancer states.
George Wallace and his staff think their chances are reduced if they don't have a system generally. Wallace plans to campaign in only a few caucus states because, he says, "the leaders are hostile toward him."
more for the delegates he got in New Hampshire than for a comparable number in caucus states. Early caucuses this year will be challenging, willing to spend more in caucuses, but their cost still
THE DEMOCRATS have adopted two significant rule changes since 1968. Delegates are required to themselves to a candidate or to explicitly state that they are uncommitted. Also, any candidate with at per cent of the vote may proportionate share of delegates.
Sen. James Buckley, former Sen. Eugene McCarthy and the American Civil Liberties Union said when they filed a suit against the law.
The Republicans have essentially the same system they had in 1964 when Barry Goldwater swiped the caucuses.
public financing of election campaigns. Public funding is intended to give poor candidates as good a chance at reaching the voters as rich ones. Each major political organization in the million from the government, education, each individual presidential hopeful can qualify for matching federal funds.
And that is what the Supreme Court said when it rulated that campaign spending calls were illegal and that, although it was constitutional to limit a contributor to $1,000 per can-
TO QUALIFY for federal
found wrong with the FEC was that two-thirds of its members were congressionally appointed. The court ruled that he should be held under other things, required that all the members be presidential appointees. That would be simple enough to fix, if it weren't so. That was Watergate was two years ago instead of one.
THE COURT did say, however, that it was legal to use public funds for election campaigns and that if a candidate receives public funds, he then was obliged to observe a spending ceiling.
It also said that it was legal for the government to give $2 million to each of the major parties. Buckley and the others bringing suit had argued that giving money to just the
Republicans and the Democrats stifled new parties and was unfair to smaller political groups.
By Jim Bates Contributing Writer
Perhaps an FEC made up of only presidential appointees is better than a list of candidates (although it could probably write a law that would allow Congress to submit a list of names to the President for him to approve).
But campaign reform doesn't have much chance of long-term success, so sort of regulatory agency. When problems come up, the problem of a third party, for example, has to be some sort of ruling.
Still, a weak watchdog is better than no watchdog at all. As long as there is an agency, the time it should be changed and amended to fit unforeseen problems. Time will increase unfairness, but it will bring less unfairness.
And that is where we are today. All the presidential candidates have said they would continue to follow the old spending limits. This is understandable, because most of them have already received federal funds, which they would have paid back if they had passed the limit—not to mention the adverse publicity of being the only candidate to go over the limit.
AND WITHOUT a separate agency, reports of campaign spending must go through the same House and Senate channels they went through before the law. The reports from the House show the same procedure that worked so badly for so long.
THE 1976 CAMPAIGN will probably go on pretty much as like the Supreme Court hadn't ruled at all. The momentum of the present campaign laws will carry through even if the FEC does not.
UNFORTUNATELY FOR the law, it also infringes upon the freedom of speech by restricting the amount an individual is able to spend to make his views known. That, at least, is what
funds, a candidate must raise $5,000 through contributions of $250 or less in 20 states. After that, the federal government will each contribution of $250 or less, up to a total of $5 million.
The law also tries to end the problem of "fat cat" contributors by limiting contributions by individuals to $1,000 and by organizations to $15,000.
THERE ARE all sorts of problems with the present reform law. They are loopholes that allow inefficiency and there is unfairness towards splinter parties. The law enables candidates concerned only with publicizing one issue, instead ofation, to qualify for federal funds.
About the only thing the court
The country went for two centuries with hardly any law at all. That proved not only to be unfair but also dangerous.
UNDOUBTEDLY, caucuses are cheaper than primaries. In 1972 McGovern spent 15 times
New Hampshire's 3-ring circus now the greatest show on earth
delegates from them. They are said to be unrepresentative of the voters of the state and to hold the party's power in party workers. In Minnesota in 1972, about nine per cent of the Democratic voters participated in the caucuses. That was one of the highest figure for any state.
By JOHN JOHNSTON
Contributing Writer
HERE COMES THE PARADE! And heading the parade into the big top is the master of ceremonies, Mr. Showbiz himself, the ringmaster. Prodded dressed in
The circus is coming to New Hampshire. Ever since I was a child I've loved the circus. I love the people of the circus.
Most of those who perform under the big top start in the beginner's category and return to their places with the bearded lady and the two-beaded girl. But while they're in practice, they couldn't be handsome.
Defenders of the caucus system say that the candidates voters in caucuses than in primaries. The voters actually get a chance to make suggestions and ask questions,
Special Focus: Campaign '76
Most of the faces have changed since I last saw the circus, but there are a few regulars who seem to make it look like they are popular of all the regulars is Humpy Dumpy. The people always seem to enjoy Humpty. His act never changes. Every year he climbs up on that wall of his and falls to the floor. And every time he farts cheer as Humpty's put him back together again.
doesn't compare with the mass media expenses of primaries.
Whether the recent rend toward more primaries is in the interest of caucuses are still important will be apparent at the conventions.
a black tuxedo and a top hat, the ringmaster sits aboard a stagecoach, which is being drawn by a team of 20 horses. He crosses the crowd and has his hat on. The circus begins.
THEN THERE'S always George the Clown, too. Georgia has his faithful followers who'll always love him, but George the Clown he's carrying a six-shooter and wearing a sheriff's badge. As usual he's got his tired little black dog on the end of a leash. And he just keeps whipping and yelling "Down, Boy, Down."
Behind Georgie is Supersonic Scoop. Scoop files through the air like a B12. 'Never seen one of them flying trapze the way he can.' The billboard outside calls him 'the man with the jet fighter wings and the nuclear warhead on his back, scare Mr Scoop. not even war,'
FOLLOWING MR. SCOOP are the invisible men, Sansen and Benfont. These guys
HERE COMES The Peanut Man. He's another of the favors. The Peanut Man has been older, the old timer, Mr. Potato Head. He can pin on any face he to fit the situation and then he can change it again. The Peanut Man seems almost every person he meets.
Marching proudly behind the Peanut Man is one of the newest attractions in the circus, "Brother-in-law of the Kenndys." Brother-in-law hasn't been much changed since he circus. He's just something of an oddity everyone likes to look at and touch.
MAKING A SPECIAL appearance in this year's circus is Milton Hospelman, Shrapnel. Milt's appearance will be dark. This will be a one-time act. He's going to be fired from the circus cannon. He's going to be shot in never-ever land—
Most of the performers are inside the tent now and the crowd is getting really excited as the last few acts march in. Mo the Magician is coming in now. Mo jokes with the crowd as he out his glass and dribbles behind his back.
THE FIRE-EATING HOOSIER follows closely behind. He's trying to take over Mo's act, but rumor has it that he doesn't like children and that he lives in a very well with crowd circles.
Next in line is the king of the circus, Jeriono. Jero does a balancing act on the high wire that's hard to beat. He's always balancing it on his left or too far to the right, because if he did it could be disastrous. Jeriono performs hundreds of feet in the air without a crash helmet. He's also scared by him, but he insists that it hasn't hurt. It's this courage that makes him the star of the show.
Sweeping up the rear of the parade is Poor Freddie. Freddie never has made it to the big time and he probably never will, but he's a man of the moment. He pops his cup to help pay his way and he sings a mean broom, too—left-handed of course.
So now the crowd sits back for the show. It'll be a long show. Keeping an eye on three rings can really be tiring. But once you've been to the circus, you're hooked forever.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Published at the University of Kansas weekdays
and weekends. Subject to payment for a second
period period. Second-class postage paid at Law-
nauckee or $1 a day in Douglas County and $1 a
semester or $1 a year in Dallas County and $1 a
month. Subscriptions are $2 a semester and $2 a
subscriptions are $2 a semester. Paid through the
University's subscription费.
Carl Young
Associate Editor Campus Editor
Betty Hangelay
Yael Abahoulah
Associate Campus Editor Greg Hack
Jacqueline Campbell
Stewart Bram
Photo Editor Steve Photographers David Conner
Photo Editor George Mauer Jake Kercher
Sports Editor George Mauer Ken Stone
Associate Sports Editors Steven Stewart
Entertainment Editors Mary Ewap, Rowe
Copy Chefs Mary Ann Hudsonton
Jai Matured Glenn Meyer
Artist News Editor Mary Ann Hudsonton
News Editor John Hickey Theresa Mendahlshn
Wire Editor Kely Song Chuck Albrander
Rachel Cohen Javier Cohen
Contributing Writers John Jates
Editor Carl Voyne
haven't been with the circus long, and some people wonder whether they're here at all. No one really expects to. No one really expects to.
Assistant Business Manager Advertising Manager
Administrator Assistant Manager Debbie Service
Classified Manager Manager Debbie Service
Promotion Director Assistant Manager Scutt Booth
Assistant Administrator Assistant Manager Jim Marquardt
Assistant Administrator Johnne
Publisher
David Dary
News Advisor
Business Advisor
Susanne Shaw
Mel Adams
Letters Policy
The Kansan welcomes letters to the editor, but asks that letters be typewritten, double-spaced and no longer than 400 words. All letters are subject to editing and condensation, according to space limitations and the editor's judgment, and must be signed. KU students must provide their name, year in school and hometown; faculty must provide their name and position; others must provide their name and address.