Countdown

Home > The Hanna Project > Election Year: 1966

1966

In what must be a shock to anyone aware of LBJ’s past history of collecting illegal corporate contributions and his reliance on wealthy donors in 1964, the president gives a State of the Union address in which he advocates campaign finance reform. “As the process of election becomes more complex and more costly, we must make it possible for those without personal wealth to enter public life without being obligated to a few large contributors,” he proclaims. “Therefore, I will submit legislation to revise the present unrealistic restriction on contributions — to prohibit the endless proliferation of committees, bringing local and state committees under the act — to attach strong teeth and severe penalties to the requirement of full disclosure of contributions — and to broaden the participation of the people, through added tax incentives, to stimulate small contributions to the party and to the candidate of their choice.” The bill that the administration sends to Congress four months later contains numerous measures that reformers have been seeking for years — regulation of primary election fundraising and intrastate political committees, tighter contribution limits, and greater disclosure of campaign finances. LBJ’s legislation ultimately stalls in the Senate Rules Committee. A competing Republican bill in the House, which would restrict political giving by labor union committees, similarly dies in committee.

Democratic Senator Russell Long of Louisiana has a bit more success with a proposal for public funding of presidential campaigns, which Congress passes and LBJ, a strong supporter, signs into law. The new law allows taxpayers to allot $1 from their income tax — $2 on a joint return — to a fund that would be divided between the two major parties, giving each up to $30 million. (Third-party candidates would receive $1 for every vote over five million that they receive.) But Long’s measure doesn’t restrict the Democrats or the Republicans from soliciting private contributions to augment their public money, and it makes no provision for the financing of increasingly costly primary campaigns. The following year, opponents in both parties will mount a counterattack, repealing most of the law’s provisions, except for the tax-return checkoff.