, | a .Ivv ,p n g. I..-,_ ‘ ‘ . '.. {' 1‘ . , “"- 1‘" ‘.\ “ . ,. . I - ‘ . " '_’ ‘ ' I o ', , 9"QI -., _‘. ‘, _ - . \.~'\.... I _ ‘ I:‘~ol‘«l'r.ihw ' '13; V '3. o i n.“ q "‘ ' V ,"9 ‘4‘!" '1 4: “=3?- "=‘.‘f~:s~'T-W Wt. -.‘.I-I‘Md.€atfiv‘s'.3«‘*‘~" ‘ '.":" - ' ~ ' ' “.77? .- "W ". .‘.‘-2“‘.."-".* 1 ‘. n u < ‘ PRESS COVERAGE OF POLITICAL REFORM LEGISLATIVE ACTION IN MICHIGAN 1974 AND 1975 Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MARIE KINGDON VANDEBUNTE 1976 TTiINBISB E g“ LIBRAR Y Michigan 5’33“: I Viv—1T ,-.——v-w BINDING BY HUNG & SONS' IIUKWIIIEHIIIL menv omotns a” I" “i" HICIIIHI Es: ,_,_ a OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per Item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place in book return to remove charge from circulation records n _\-.__. -. ~r. 4J5 . . ‘fi ‘ -.. ~:‘s ‘H .LC... -.-..1. ‘.. | o I ‘ “I a‘ V “V‘w en‘.~.-:Q ‘e‘VL I" . ‘ . ‘ ‘ . A ... rug" . I.- .:H.‘e.‘tlmuEad AM .__. ‘ I A.‘ ‘~ h ¢.:: .y- rahe H‘ . .. ‘ ‘ ‘._ .V'N 1' e“ h.‘s “fig“: “‘. I T: ;--. k a a. “.5 We CUES :\.;I-A-~‘.v : T~._.=":‘ we re §| ‘A 5 t\~~n \a :-._ L ‘ k H.” 2“ I can“ ~EEn KI..:~‘-; ‘ \5"“‘n~ “C ~ 3 r N "i \ I“ ABSTRACT PRESS COVERAGE OF POLITICAL REFORM LEGISLATIVE ACTION IN MICHIGAN 1974 AND 1975 BY Marie Kingdon VandeBunte Watergate focused attention on the needs for sweeping reforms in our political system. Governmental officials in Michigan began to consider and discuss political reform legislation in late 1973.. In 1974 loophole-ridden legislation passed both House and Senate. Press coverage of this legislative activity was adequate but hardly enthusiastic. In several instances, the press could not be considered helpful to those who were urging comprehensive reforms. Common Cause, a national citizens' lobbying organi- zation, had been active and instrumental in advocating far-reaching political reform legislation on both federal and state levels. ' "‘-l -. .- .‘ F an .4 T, c . . “"V“ R'Hw- - w. .— " H \ 'I'Iobl My... -5‘.~ , a _"‘v0 0'..- .fi. - . M '3’“. bear. a“. . .— I ..,... “~ . .. _ H a c. _ " N 4 ' m..." .. .....: .. _ y . n :"g. ""I‘ ~-- L ‘Ov- ...~.._ . 4;; . ~ 4.. ~ 1 y- m... . .- I...V“ona~a 32 . D II I l;.."‘O-A . . - I . --.,._.- :;:~‘ I. vs. “Myt‘ } n i '4 I. u.- ._" an I ‘ ' n‘ “a. "’ ~. . ‘ kv 5“ 1. . I‘ ‘ " h. a ~a 7- \§_‘; 19 7.. y‘- “;._:|, u e.‘.u \ ‘5 - Q._« . " & ~S ., L \‘I ‘.~i . '§ '\ \-': ‘ a w -, 4 v‘ . s. 1 Q. ~‘ ‘- . :- ' \ '-. F u‘:‘~ ‘ . ‘4‘ “ Marie Kingdon VandeBunte In 1974, after the Michigan Legislature passed watered down legislation, Common Cause-Michigan, with support from the Detroit Free Press and other newspapers, threatened a statewide referendum petition drive to initiate strict reform measures by a vote of the peOple in Michigan. Following four and one-half months of intense negotiation sessions between Common Cause, legislative Quadrant leaders (Speaker of the House of Representatives, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader) and the Governor, a strong, comprehensive, 7l-page bill was introduced into the Legislature on May 19, 1975. The bill was signed into law by the Governor on August 27, 1975. The press in Michigan closely followed the legislative prOgress of the political reform bill. The focus of this paper is on press coverage of Political Reform in Michigan, 1974 and 1975. Legislative action, political strategy, and the role of the citizen activists—-Common Cause—Michigan-—will be discussed. During 1975, as the political reform legislation was wending its way through the legislative process, this writer was working as a legislative research staff member, concentrating on the political reform legislation--as 2 .01.... “ .0— e 9. Pa J Ana tube C: 'I-oo.‘ “ a rampant “ C3 CCVQ 72,-. .‘.M._v .I {Ir-€53 :15 . - In. . ._: a .A ‘3' a pa" ’ ‘ s P; . Q‘.-:\ “‘15 i.‘ a~\= : fl ‘.~Ual‘t O s \. p. I ‘. “..:I . ' "'33 .. ,- 3s65 \ de- a‘a ~88 CC! I :‘-.. I‘ I ‘é 3C3? e “- rar~ ‘ ““Es 4 ‘ Marie Kingdon VandeBunte both a participant in the process, and an observer of that process. The role of the press has been studied by concen- trating on the coverage of political reform in the Detroit Free Press, Lansing State Journal, and Detroit News. An arbitrary sampling of other Michigan newspapers was also a part of the study. The editorial "turnaround" position of the Detroit Free Press, on several major points of political reform, must be considered an important part of this story. Interviews with elected officials, political consultants, legislative staff members, aides to the governor, press personnel, and Common Cause activists were also a part of the study. Findings include the determination that Common Cause's impact on 1975 political reform legislation in Michigan was great. Press coverage was at the minimum adequate, and for the most part well done. It was not complete however-- perhaps due to time and/or space constraints. . . \v. «D .J .\u we 3 L an. qua id #C I an .1 PRESS COVERAGE OF POLITICAL REFORM LEGISLATIVE ACTION IN MICHIGAN 1974 AND 1975 BY Marie Kingdon VandeBunte A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS School of Journalism 1976 1. I.MM A~.:r_ a ELI . . ‘ ‘ l— ..‘ A ~ >I‘":‘~3H' Ug‘e: 1...)“ :‘a. ."I‘ ' iuolfia H. - y..- :5 :E:‘;i:a-DI * s f . bo-l.‘. y Accepted by the faculty of the School of Journalism, College of Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree. file 35 a firstI ‘_-. . “’3' ‘o .“‘:: n4 0 ‘H in: V ~ .~:‘.: ~‘ .. :“‘ I “PM“ V ‘d 1 :3: :m. . 15: < A.“ ‘ I 5"\‘e“ . I 'rhs .U 1 I" ~ . 'L v'q 4‘.“ “5‘ \ 5 nu ‘3 as», ‘ r*EI I‘E= a ‘ srh ‘\u:‘.~r ‘ 53c... in ‘\-."“v \; s . . 3 ‘ a". Q . ”ehtl “12». i \ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As a first-hand observer of this event, I was able to experience the political process of legislation and at the same time "watchdog" the "watchdog" press. Although the idea of "using" the legislative event as a thesis topic did not occur until after the event was enacted, it was still soon enough so that memories were fresh, and personal notes still decipherable. To say that the experience of assessing the press coverage has been rewarding and worthwhile is an understatement. It has been challenging, complex, frustrating, and fun! I would like to express particular thanks and appreciation to Dr. George Hough, for doing so much to make this possible. I thank Professors Mary Gardner and Ray Cullen, whose demanding assignments inspired an "older" student to strive to do her best. But my most special thanks and appreciation go to Professor Frank Senger, whose encouragement and guidance, with a feeling of quiet caring and gentle concern, will always be a cherished ii m4 lm‘ In aadltlc: .::e'.:e:' tremend: asses actzcns um -“.'." I “y‘- ff-‘Ia s: :4. knt! Ity acknow‘. \ .5... the ones 5.1.1.9: to ”me; In addition, I also wish to thank my "sources," who helped tremendously in my knowledge of behind—the- scenes actions which, unfortunately, could not always appear in print! My acknowledgement would not be complete without a special word for the support offered by family and friends--the ones who long ago inspired, and who have continued to "keep the faith." And last but not least-—thanks to me, for proving to myself (and others) that I could really do it! iii “a; ' ~"‘ q'.‘ - k‘l‘"~-OA - ' 1 “ll,u‘5 . O nu. q! ~'\K‘Mn.~ u:. v: b;-«:J‘.~_.L:~ ‘ D! o r. 433 e 3A.. 7"? ‘ . at a vut“b._‘~ B . 5.x- M‘h ._ Ana 2 Fe: ‘v so \?~ R - 0 Aug“ 02‘; Pt . h; “. ‘ “A so. r! 1T Y V (‘a L.Tl‘h. V-A 7' ‘ M‘ I .111; 5:1?” o h, ' . :‘AAL 7— TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CAST OF CHARACTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. II. III. IV. VI. PART I. POLITICAL REFORM, 1974 POLITICAL REFORM BEGINNINGS. . . . . Background--Common Cause . . . . The Beginnings of Post-Watergate Reforms in Michigan. . . . . . ADDITIONAL REFORMS NEEDED. . . . . . Political PART II. POLITICAL REFORM, 1975 POLITICAL REFORM REVISIONS BEGIN . . THE LEGISLATIVE BATTLE--HOUSE ACTION THE BATTLE CONTINUES IN THE SENATE . FINAL LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT. . . . . iv Page 11 11 16 60 77 105 168 194 u-‘a- U \Uo A-t‘ ":‘7 'gt' "W’rwrs ... CCKYCN CA' uu- Av‘a- 1“ A I' o g Y‘ a... 5-“; ‘ o- ‘90:". “FA I aul ave—Db EL: ADVAV I... " S.‘.‘.“~DI .. p.-. - a", ’u '1‘ a": I - I~-..‘I. A TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.) Chapter Page PART III. POST-ENACTMENT; ASSESSMENT VII. COMMON CAUSE ASSESSMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . 205 VIII. A QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY. . . . . . . . 212 IX. PRESS RESPONSIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 X 0 CONCLUSION O O O O O O O O I O 0 O O O O O O O 225 BIBLIOGMPHY O O O C C O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 230 NM,” .3 _ 'HWWL 9—. 49"" I‘M‘ “' , .: pest-h 2w: “tratic sazazmn. An :: :fi1ce sui‘ 1.. ‘l "'r “391‘ a th'C‘ INTRODUCTION "Watergate" has become the word symbolic of a "turning point" in our political system. Events may be classified now as being "pre-Watergate" (prior to June 17, 1972), or "post-Watergate." The word symbolizes one of the most dramatic political events in our ZOO-year history as a nation. An on-the-surface simple, third-rate burglary of an office suite in Washington's Watergate Complex turned into, over a two-year period, an upheaval that resulted in the ultimate resignation of this nation's highest elected official, the President. Watergate may be perceived as the catalyst in an evolution of crises (Vietnam, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, politicalassassinations of the 1960's, pollution, unemployment, inflation) which already had evoked unconcealed cynicism among a public grown mis- trustful not only of government and politicians,.but also of a broad range of American institutions, including business, education, labor, and the professions. l Ian-'3 I". H'r ,4- {i ‘ ‘~RGr-I ‘ I w fivwv.u¢u: H“ r~ & nab ava.e - q . . Inn.-. A“ ‘ :.._=.. .t. e :L-‘l'. A"? V".A~ -~-. vul- r.‘_ . Dyan. "vi. . ”‘2‘ “JV “H‘s h»- . . u uni. In .H ' a... a.“ ..|.e it: 1221511? a: '0. A”, ; ‘r 01" vi. 0‘ G., \ I u... _" 0".“ V ..._ ‘ -. p. q ~ g-.=SQ.S::-e+ . .; -- - H ‘Fu‘ I” n n‘.‘ g [e n 0‘ H .- . I ~.‘- . --ter.t1cn ._:q r“! . ‘H‘ q . ‘II:‘ a" . ‘\‘ h’hl ~31:~ ‘= a :‘ng . . ‘lc ;-_‘ x. :51; up a Fe .Z:_“i:e ‘L “-Q Ca? ‘v I'dters k 3“. :7- i \. I‘ .‘VEV «E Q s 5 ‘ _‘ axe to |‘.:\“ According to a Michigan political consultant: Watergate was the dramatic symbol of all the accumulated evils that the public had imagined about our political system. Watergate was horrid proof that politicians were crooked, that govern- ment and the people in government were arrogant and abusive and, above all, that those in gov- ernment were there only for selfish rewards and not out of any desire to serve the people.1 And,more important, Watergate has resulted in new rules and a new mood for the political life, times and participants. The politician must play the old game by the new rules-~sometimes_enacted hastily,.often enacted reluc- tantly--and the general public appears to be paying much- closer attention to all the events surrounding our compli- cated political process. On a national level we have seen federal legisla- tion enacted which limits campaign contributions, estab- lishes a public funding system for Presidential candidates, and sets up a Federal Elections Commission to oversee and regulate the campaign process. Voters have reacted, in the post-Watergate era, with an interest and concern which had not been previously apparent. The "Saturday Night Massacre" (Saturday, lPersonal interview with Michigan political con- sultant, December 1, 1975. 4 S l I u i r. a» t A . .au I e L. .G e .H «(a o. an at his e e “N n e nu S 5 wk A: a .. a r. a .5 L C C T. e .l a c .C 9 3. av v. e r . . .. . a v. n . {a all r. o L e -uu a: C . .. a u 1 «L. t I e .. nu t.» a. V” C 3. l C. a i . . ‘n .x v. n. a“ .L E L. 5 CV .3 n I a. .u o aflu Pu Hi: “I“ a nu ~15 u. I“ r. L * n .n‘ .u u a: G~ I a: u . . . ”a“ P... .uuu .3... um at» u“.- n: ~ . : a v. -. a 3 u." I Z .J r... .... u... ...n. .1. ..... C .c... ..... m. T." .. . u. .. . . .... . . . . .:.. ...... . ,. . . P. . u h .. 1. ....... .. L» a; x... .. _.. .C ...... October 20, 1973, when President Richard M. Nixon ordered Special Watergate Prosecutor Archibald Cox to be fired, and, when Attorney General Elliott Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus refused to carry out the order, the President ordered them to be fired as well) is remembered because it produced an unprecedented citizen reaction. More than 150,000 telegrams, the largest con- centrated volume in the history of Western Union, poured into Washington in Opposition to the President's action.1 Many urged impeachment. Twenty-two bills, requesting an impeachment investigation, were introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives. In this post-Watergate era there has been a change in voter attitudes. The voter--who in effect controls the politicians' destinies and who never really loved or revered the politicians before-~is in a new mood. The public is angry, restless and disenchanted with the way their non- heroes have played the political game in the past. And the rules of that game are now different than they were at the time the Watergate scandal erupted. lCarl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, The Final Days, P. 71. - r at lung.-;" O .: :..:. ....... b _ . .. . . I .. -’ I Oh A ‘ - ~ ’ .sgoi. ... 0.. S . ‘~. - 1.: V I .. tie r. t‘. 5:537! Cpinion 00' ‘ .A 1... a g Q... ..~. L . in. F‘! ‘A‘ .‘ ' .. ‘ " r- « ~-.u v‘ 5 ““Cvr.: It‘- I- 'n I ' ‘ "“ uEv’E: 5.: - I“. . ‘3 " :~ ..,. Q.Q5:. kra ‘ a» ‘ 1.. _- Q‘. N ' R . bs§e%:’ 1‘ l h ‘1 ...e 53:” H «‘0‘. w; ‘. ‘5 \.. ..~ ‘ ~ '.\. .‘.:ea' b“... “ ":‘aa: ~\‘ ‘n 19‘s c ‘-"“e VG~ thaflav“. ‘ a fig.‘ f";:'h‘§ “- ‘5 “IN sv‘ ‘ ‘?§.1 .. ‘I ‘ ' T_ “ .... « . .13: ‘ lg“ ‘w In Michigan, the rules were changed drastically by the enactment of House Bill 5250, Public Act 227 of 1975, in the 1975 legislative session. This legislation was called "the most comprehensive political reform law of any state in the nation."1 However, a state Supreme Court Advisory Opinion, issued March 29, 1976, two days before Public Act 227 of 1975 was to take effect, declared the entire act unconstitutional, on the basis of a technical- ity--that the act "encompassed more than one subject."2 Thus the rules were changed, but, unfortunately, the game never had to be revised to be played under the new rules. The rules were changed, but they never went into effect, in Michigan. The focus of this paper will be on political reform in Michigan, with background offered on the 1974 legisla- tion passed, but with an emphasis on the legislation enacted in 1975. (At the time, this writer was a legis- lative research staff member, concentrating on the complex political reform legislation.) 1William G. Milliken, Governor of Michigan, Press Release issued August 27, 1975. 2Michigan Supreme Court, Advisory Opinion, issued March 29, 1976. u..- -- “-‘I 'v-‘ I u tug}... _ A I _ _ u...._" U- _ u- .«n .'-- v . ‘ . '. D... " - .‘ .‘..w o N. -': 4-- ~- -."'~n ‘q 0“ a..‘ .- u .‘ 1 - - -‘-- V b -.§ _ hb“ : in Q;- _ V.- “v._ I --A l' : v . ."v‘ 1 V . o . u M “ ‘ K ‘- . s.- .‘- ‘ .-- ~ - '5. . V ‘ -.-‘ . .‘.\‘ a-‘ - h \ ‘»‘ ~l‘-_ ..§. ‘- \‘u. ‘ Ls.‘_ ‘._“ H . u- . V ‘ -‘ ‘ ‘- ‘ ‘ ‘ -I .“ s “‘ .. .. -_‘ . ~ ‘ I. t - \' \ ‘- -‘ -.¥‘ S» Q . - ‘ \. Even though the legislation is inoperative, this paper is written, for the most part, in the context of those political reform proposals as they were proposed, accepted, and as the actions were reported by the press. The role of the press will be considered through the study of daily newspapers in the State of Michigan, as they focused on the general issue of political reform, and on the 1974 and 1975 legislation as it wended its way through the often frustrating processes of introduction, House and Senate committees, hearings, floor action, and finally, a governor's signature. The two Detroit daily newspapers, the Free Press and the News, were studied in depth, along with the Lansing State Journal. Other state newspapers were arbitrarily considered--when articles were available through a clipping service, or through the personal files of sources and legislative staff members, made available to this writer. As will be seen, public and press reaction to the 1974 measures was lukewarm at best. In the fall of 1974, pressure to enact stronger political reform measures for Michigan was generated by an active citizens' lobbying group, "Common Cause-—Michigan," whose parent organization In u. ,..' .’A. n -.l nu .0... u. 'V‘~-. u. -q', H ‘, “'I..fl‘.- . a 9A a.“ .:"' .: A_ J. \I" 1" . .. ’ I“‘ ~. ' ‘ u“ ‘.‘.I - ’ v. ny-‘ I .— ‘~.:.‘... . '0. 1 ' l u. 'I :*t-; g. .- I-“ P s.. ~.‘I '- .. ‘ ...:'. 5" ‘q .. s.:uQ “”2" d. .‘ _ ‘ 'w A. “:CS‘Tv ‘« In . y | ‘ ‘~‘. N A“ . § ‘ Q .‘~ - : “ I . d ‘ A s *v x‘ \ :“~~ \. ~~l Q- ‘l ‘1 a. . 5:; ‘\ .'- Q ~ ~ ‘5 v, had been instrumental in lobbying for the far-reaching political reforms on the federal level. The measure passed in the 1974 legislative session in Michigan was clearly unsatisfactory to the citizen crusaders, however, and the press covered that reaction. Members of Common Cause stated that enrolled Senate Bill 1016 "didn't go far enough," and they launched an exten- sive program demanding much more of the 1974 candidates and elected officials. As will be seen, Common Cause's impact on 1975 political reform legislation in Michigan was great. In other states, when state legislators declined to enact strong political reform legislation, concerned citizens would initiate referendum petition drives to place measures on the ballot. The year 1974 saw the passage of stringent ballot reform proposals. That June, California's "PrOposition IX" (political reform) passed, by a 3 to 1 margin, although the proposal did not have the endorsement or support of the major political parties, of Big Business, or of Organized Labor. The California pro- posal was recognized as the strongest political reform measure in the country. Common Cause in California — - -.v :7. call"!“ .s— u Irv.- I on pul . -h- a- " ‘n .. T““" O: :Q.‘-.I' I u‘. ‘ I- "u-.--_- u._ . ’ In-.. “a. "'\‘ —.~‘ '1'” A N.‘ VA- deserved much of the credit for promoting those strong reforms. Because of Watergate, it may be said that the public is demanding that politicians be more visible. For the most part, politicians have, of necessity, become more accessible than in the past. People have demonstrated their desire to be involved. Petition drives and citizen task force workshops offer substantial evidence to this effect.1 Watergate may be said to have heightened the accountability syndrome. What the true and lasting impact of Watergate on American politics has been, and will be, remains unanswered. But what we as citizens must realize is that there is going to be a lasting legacy from Watergate--in particular, one of reform. We are experiencing that here in Michigan. But the public and the watchdog press can not relax and assume that the reforms have solved it all, or will solve it all. 1State Representative David C. Hollister (D-LansingL has spearheaded five citizen task forces which have pro- moted progressive legislation such as open meetings, wel- fare reform, and day care. A March 21, 1976 "57th District Legislative Conference" drew more than 200 persons to participate in citizen workshops. gulp- ‘ o !:-:v-:o: 3"! cut. "" “out. . n. , . uo- IOOnnA-a . Ir 0-6 I... I...'~l.~-l 'u- .. y _r I... paq: ”ho-n... ~"- 0 ':"' “VAUI'Ip :- ~.: ”\~ Vb-n-Au--- - . R “\- V" s : U. “I..~ _ I.... I O V Nan... "u... a fig .“‘OIU- c t I L 9 . I. .: A“FN-. . 59...... ...e “a "NA. 4!- x .. n n u ¥-‘=E-- U. A\.. .‘h 7‘” ‘3‘ n ..‘ ~. 3" .«‘ §V§‘. I” V .__'" A ~‘. i"Uh... . LVN: .. ‘ul . ‘4‘.“- Q"... 'N' T. --Q\,..‘-. ‘ 'Q 'i ‘ I ' I A...- V~ ‘A,‘ ‘ I‘U‘s - _. ‘Q " “nu ‘u‘- u‘ A Watergate, and the enactment of reform measures, have not made officeholders more honest. But reform legislation is important because it is habit forming. If the public de- mands openness and accessibility, the candidate having those traits and being able to project them will have a better chance of being elected. Watergate left a permanent change on the way pol— itics is conducted and the way peOple view politicians. The Watergate impact has been widespread. Its specific thrust in the Michigan political arena can be realized as we review the citizen reaction, instigated by Common Cause--Michigan, in demanding reforms to our polit— ical system. The proposed reforms were stronger than Michigan politicians were at first willing to accept, without considerable analysis, concern, and intense nego- tiation. Michigan's political reform story, in 1974 and 1975, obviously had its roots in Watergate, but the impact of local citizens and citizen groups can not be ignored. F." .n. 1.11.. . :2 V" .0”. how- nl-‘ g ‘a “.35: V‘ as. ‘4 .IQ I I. a I 1.1! a I 5 .1 a. . C .. C v. e -7. Ta 2. “I. \n‘ ~11 u ~c LL 5.. A: .(w . L ~\~ A.» .. n :- Q» uh; N.‘ a: a3 - u LE ‘\. h~\ his \ ... ~ \ Aw I A v .2 \v. \ s \ ~ .u. CAST OF CHARACTERS Governor William G. Milliken (Republican) Legislative Leaders Speaker of the House House Minority Leader Senate Majority Leader Senate Minority Leader House Majority (Floor) Leader House Minority (Floor) Leader Committee on House Policy Bobby D. Crim (D-Davison) Dennis O. Cawthorne (R-Manistee) William Fitzgerald (D-Detroit) Robert Davis (R-Gaylord) Joe Forbes (D-Oak Park) William Bryant (R-Grosse Pointe Farms) John Markes, Chairman (D-Livonia) Joe Forbes, Vice-chair (D-Oak Park) Barbara-Rose Collins (D-Detroit) George Cushingberry, Jr. (D-Detroit) Josephine Hunsinger (D-Detroit) Jack Legel (D-Detroit) Paul Rosenbaum (D-Battle Creek) Roy Spencer, Republican vice-chair (R—Attica) James Defebaugh (R-Birmingham) John Engler (R—Mt. Pleasant) Ralph Ostling (R-Roscommon) 10 Senate Committee on Municipalities and Elections Patrick McCollough, Chairman (D-Dearborn) Arthur Cartwright (D—Detroit) Kerry Kammer (D-Pontiac) John Welborn (R—Kalamazoo) Robert Young (R-Saginaw) The Quadrant Speaker of the House Bobby D. Crim House Minority Leader Dennis O. Cawthorne Senate Majority Leader ‘ William Fitzgerald Senate Minority Leader Robert Davis Quadrant Staff (executive aides) Stan Fedewa (Crim) Archie Lewis (Cawthorne) Rick Cole (Fitzgerald) Phil Arthurholz (Davis) Common Cause Doug Ross, Executive Director Susan Rennels, Chairperson, Common Cause--Michigan Terry Black, Vice-Chairperson, Common Cause—-Michigan Capitol Press Corps Member of the Press, including wire services and reporters from Michigan daily newspapers throughout the state PART I POLITICAL REFORM, 1974 CHAPTER I POLITICAL REFORM BEGINNINGS Background--Common Cause John Gardner, former Cabinet Director of Health, Education and Welfare in the Johnson Administration, and founder and national chairman of Common Cause, the citizens' lobby he founded in 1970, has stated:1 The ironic thing about the old system, the secret government behind closed doors, was that any really powerful group knew what was going on behind those doors. The only people who didn't know were the citizens--the public, the taxpayer, the consumer. They were the peOple from whom the secret was being kept. In Michigan in December 1975, Gardner said he was "impressed with the amount of reform that has been accom- plished and that will be accomplished," and discussed in detail what he called "the wave of reform in state govern- ment."2 1”Opening the Windows After Watergate,“ Detroit Free Press, interview with John Gardner, December 13, 1975, p. 8-A. 21bid. 11 .J. -. .OI flan .._c b .\. A ‘ U -'\‘ ‘ A ‘5‘ . . :v “o. I ‘- \ .‘~. .4 u ‘ U at“; ‘.l H '0 -~' t.: I‘- . i R .U . ‘ .“ .‘ V‘:\h .\ .5 - I ~:~~: \‘ 4‘ ‘~‘ "Q. l U 'I . \ y. , t~‘ 2 ‘l p 12 In an interview with the editorial board of the Detroit Free Press, John Gardner said: Forty-six out of 50 states have put through one or another of our major reform measures, and those are lobbying disclosure measures or conflict of interest measures or campaign fi- nancing or Open meeting or freedom of informa- tion. Forty-six out of the 50 states--and as you know, state legislators do not have an ungovernable impulse to reform. This is the biggest wave of reform at the state legislature level in the history of the country. Gardner said he believed that Congress and the state legislatures have moved "with considerable care." And: they‘re dealing with their own business--their own lives. Legislators are dealing with their careers when they deal with these matters, and they're very unlikely to be stampeded.2 The specific thrust made by Watergate in the Mich- igan political arena may be observed as we ponder citizen reaction here in two special Congressional elections held in 1973 and 1974. When Gerald Ford, who represented the 5th Congres- sional District in Congress, was named to the vice- presidency, a special election was scheduled in the Fifth lIbid. 21bid. u....' '0 - ‘0. “I “ “50".1 . . ~;- .‘ VA.“ "' a u-‘ 5“, .'l- A _ ' ' V' ~— .‘ .s-t. . C O. . D. ' c " a .. “.I N ’- c.‘ ‘. n L 13 District. The Michigan state Senate Majority Leader, Republican Robert VanderLaan, campaigned against Grand Rapids attorney, Democrat Robert VanderVeen for the seat which Gerald Ford had held for twenty—five years. The national press proclaimed it anti-Nixon sentiment as Republicans in the conservative Dutch community exercised their right not to vote. VanderVeen won. In the 8th Congressional District, an election held in the spring of 1974 (Congressman James Harvey, Republican, had accepted a federal judicial appointment), pitted Republican James Sparling against state Represen- tative Democrat Robert Traxler. President Richard Nixon decided to campaign personally in the Bay City and Thumb area on Sparling's behalf. Traxler won. Congressional elections in November 1974 sent Democrats to the U.S. House of Representatives with an almost veto-proof 291 members. Another important factor in gaining perspective for political reform in Michigan is a December 1973 Common Cause Report from Washington which stated: High-minded citizens who look down on politics are going to have to learn that we need our politicians. Just as we must re- ject those who corrupt the public process, 5C 'a‘ "" .1..." A. UO-boc y. ‘ RA .1 t. q :I. ."'A. '- i-u I...¢y.~ ‘ . O i 9 ~ . ‘ 1. '."~ OI ‘Vtg‘..“ b: ‘ IV: D- ‘ V u“ h-.. At: h.‘ 14 so we must support those politicians who risk their careers in the public interest.1 A common theme throughout the Common Cause doctrine and principles is that of the importance of citizen action, including the "spontaneous expression of citizen discon- tent."2 In discussing the new shape and tone of citizen impact on today's political scene, John Gardner wrote: Citizen organizations have learned how to make their influence felt. They have learned to do their homework; they have learned how to organize; they have develOped the same competence and toughmindedness that charac- terizes the most effective special interest lobbies. Citizen action is a part of the necessary machinery of democracy. To discern its role, one need only examine the dozens of movements it has spawned--women's suffrage, the movement to abolish child labor, conservation. It is often the only way a significant new issue can get on the nation's agenda.3 And citizen action, as in the case of Michigan, is often the significant way an old issue found unacceptable by a group of citizens united together, can become the focal point. An old issue may not go far enough, so it 1Report from Washington, from Common Cause, December 1973-January 1974, p. 21. 2Ibid. 3Ibid., p. 22. r / , Ah ‘ n. l to no. u I a.-- . - -—-. -.-. 'uu-u '.'-u— *c. . h - \- >‘ u .1 I .. l" a- 1 a ‘ «a s. ‘ b ‘ u s v ‘. I‘ '_ h‘ ‘ n: 15 may become a new issue to a group of citizens. In Michigan, the 1974 "old issue" of political reform--which Common Cause members did not like in the form in which it eventually passed the Legislature—-became the "new issue" of late 1974 and most of 1975. Political Reform 1975 was on-its way in 1974, spurred by Common Cause when the Legislature failed to enact complete and thorough reform measures in time for the 1974 primary and general elections. It is important, therefore, to understand the 1974 political reform procedures and maneuverings so that 1975 can be put into proper perspective. In September 1973, with no substantial press notice, a state affiliate of Common Cause was formed. As will be seen, this citizens group, through extremely able leader- ship of the persons who served as lobbyist for the group, and the state directors, would assume a major role-~that of catalyst--in initiating strong, comprehensive political reform measures in Michigan. These persons would work arduous hours (indeed, one criterion for their Executive Director was to be on "24 hour call"), before realizing noteworthy achievement in August of 1975. - \ . A .0. v. v unguu ~"~v. . o ... . ' - l v g... A' A: II u": this. 10.: v'AF“ ‘ cu. ‘t...‘.‘ . a :l.. g. a . s ' c. ‘ivl§~.' ‘~ I . . ‘uu :“~::_ V I. l h 5'. ‘ ‘ ‘ “..‘ - .Vl -. ‘W. '::A-~ ss‘v‘.‘ - 2'. : \ ~" . ‘ ‘t. Q‘l D “ :fi:.‘~ . “~‘Q‘QV‘F, \‘ :V q .. ‘ u .. _ -. m: ._K 1 ‘ “.Vl . t: a q ~' ‘45:. H .:~ “ ‘ N ‘- av“: N.“ fi‘u‘ a‘ V 3 \.‘ I in Z. ‘- 5 .‘ ‘g. I. ‘ \'n." 2‘ \ \ 16 The Beginnings of Post-Watergate Political Reforms in Michigan In October 1973, John Gardner spoke in Lansing urging support for political reform measures. On October 14, 1973, the Lansing State Journal reported that Republicans in the Michigan Legislature "generally support campaign and election reform," but wanted to be careful "that the GOP does not let itself become the only party to 'emerge with '"1 That statement came in one hand tied behind its back. a memo circulated to Republican legislators as a result of an October 1 meeting of House and Senate Republican leaders and Governor William G. Milliken, a Republican. The memo, according to the newspaper report, said campaign and elec- tion reform "was by far the most complex subject discussed and few, if any, concrete recommendations came out of the considerable time devoted to it."2 A key issue did seem to be the thought that it would: be essential that "in-kind" contributions be regulated just as thoroughly as direct finan- cial contributions. "In-kind" contributions, lHugh Morgan, "GOP Supports Election Reforms, With Caution," Lansing State Journal, October 14, 1973, p. B-2. 21bid. .. . . 1’. 'u ,_ ‘l. ‘h ‘ .' u.~ -.,: 1" t ‘l ”I a 17 of course, include such things as contribu— tions of manpower and facilities, a la the UAW and AFL-c10.1 In a special message to the Legislature on Oc- tober 25, 1973, Governor Milliken asked the lawmakers to take up political reforms as their first priority, and he urged passage before the end of the year.2 In the wake of Watergate and Spiro Agnew, the capitol is awash with talk about passing tough new laws to keep similar corruption out of Michigan politics. Governor Milliken has led the way in rhe- toric about the need to reform Michigan's weak law regulating political campaign financing and lobbying activities. However, it looked bleak for any significant reform in 1973, and possibly 1974. The Free Press stated: "But so far, all the talk has produced no legislative action, and chances are fading fast that any campaign reform laws will be passed in 1973."4 lIbid. 2William G. Milliken, Governor of Michigan, Message to the Legislature, October 25, 1973. 3William Meek, "Campaign Reform Bills Bog Down," Detroit Free Press, November 19, 1973, p. 8-C. 41bid. 1.. on-g ~ It.“ an. 3" u.‘ "TF. D. l! ."--.= v-~ b: . .‘ . “‘.(=," b. 8 .~' «I .2;‘ I I‘ ' d I"... ,\ ' ‘ Q ~“ a. ‘ '«‘-"‘ ‘u I‘. I- \ ~._ I. ‘:~- ' '~ “I .. v v 'C. ‘ h 18 The article continued: Lack of leadership from the executive office and lack of interest among the legislators are equally involved in the footdragging in the Republican-controlled Senate where the reform programs are supposed to be passed first.1 And a significant "editorial" comment: Milliken knows it will be increasingly dif- ficult, if not impossible, to get reform legis- lation enacted in the 1974 election year as the lawmakers become more interested in winning elections than in purifying them.2 A special Senate study committee recommended basic reforms paralleling the Governor's proposals. Senator William S. Ballenger (R-Ovid), committee co—chairman, warned that "many legislators don't want to ad0pt political reforms" and declared that success "depends mainly on Milliken's leadership." Ballenger said, "It depends on how badly the governor wants it, whether he's willing to knock heads to get results."3 And as of November 19, 1973, the governor's own bills, containing his reform measures, had not yet been introduced. Clearly, although Milliken told newsmen "There is still time," there was no possi- bility for any reasonable reform measures for 1973. lIbid. 21bid. 31bid. c. FI~ ‘ 1 ‘1‘ u . H .. u. :5 A» .i. I. hs .‘ a . .n. n .. ... s. :. .. us. 1» \« :- .w as. .. .: 4. v. ... 2. .: se ;\ o . u .. :— .. g g . p . .\» .C .. 1. .: z. 1. in v. a: . a .. 2‘ \-. ...u ,u __ h... ..... .:.. . . .. r. .... .3. .n. .. .. ..:. . 19 In a November 20, 1973 editorial, the Free Press stated: The Michigan Legislature and Governor Milliken are missing an excellent opportunity to show the public that they are really ser- ious about cleaning up the political process.1 All the citizens of Michigan would be the losers if the governor and the Legislature did not face up to their responsibilities, according to the editorial. The fires Press called for Milliken to "work to make his rhetoric a reality, and legislators should heed his call for action."2 It would seem that a "catalyst" was needed--someone (or some group, perhaps?) to be totally dedicated to enact- ing reform "for the common good"--if Reform was to be Re- ality. The Governor did not appear dedicated enough to assume that role. Nor did any state legislator--senator or representative--step forward to pick up the gauntlet. Whose was the moving oar? Detroit Free Press editorials on December 23, 1973, blasted the Legislature for having done "little of real significance despite an excellent opportunity to make l . . . "More Talk Than Action on Reform in Lans1ng," Qgtroit Free Press, November 20, 1973, p. 8-A. 2Ibid. . \ 'FO I. ug ‘ ‘~ v:.= I'-‘ '5 ul“. .1, r"... . I A. Q'. v.- .5 _l (I) 0 l. no In ‘4: be 20 progress,"1 and quoted a Common Cause year-end report which "makes the dramatic point that Watergate has spurred legis- latures across the country into action to clean up the American political system."2 A significant note: "Michigan is not passed ocrats jority act on preventing any consideration of it." mentioned at all" in a list of 25 states which had effective new laws in at least one area of reform.3 The editorials pointed to the minority Senate Dem- as the culprits (although they did not have a ma- of the votes). "The Democrats . . . did not want to the campaign financing bill . . . and succeeded in 4 The Free Press article continued: We are certain that most Democrats in Michigan do want to see the political system cleaned up, but the Democrats in the Senate have so far shown no inclination to act in this area of broad public interest. So far they have used nothing but stalling tactics to avoid responsibility.5 l"Michigan Scores Poorly 0n Reform Legislation," Detroit Free Press, December 23, 1973, p. 2-B. Press, 21bid. 31bid. 4". . . And Democrats Shun a Duty," Detroit Free December 23, 1973, p. 2-B. 5"Michigan Scores Poorly on Reform Legislation," Detroit Free Press, December 23, 1973, p. 2-B. - Arn—n z-n w-N (m--- 'I on 5.: f 5.5. a ' Q I.” th“.' ~N ugh, “fink. o I. ..' 1v d . V . ‘ .I .. ,4 w u... :1. \ “I ~._". . .VHH. u‘Vq f ‘ ~. 44‘ .._“.. ‘ h . s_.‘ -9 I I .“1 . ‘a. n h i in“. Ex ‘ ,- a... I ~:. :I s . laaA . ~ s'.; a u. b‘“‘.‘ T. ‘.I .‘l‘ ’ ‘ 1 “I. Ifi.‘~ “5“:21 ‘ ‘O I I. u \‘is a; V5 1 \ ' I rl.. ~~‘ , 21 In its second editorial, the Free Press restated that "the Legislature has done little about political re- form, despite the fact that the Watergate scandals have created a new public awareness of the need for reform."1 By mid—January 1974, the Senate finally acted, and passed "a reasonably strong campaign finance disclosure bill."2 Although the Senate bill was said to allow a number of "loopholes," there was optimism regarding the bill's passage in the Democratic-controlled House of Representa- tives. However, a provision in the bill which would require reporting of "in-kind" contributions was not expected to meet with favor by Democrats. The State Journal commented: The usual horse trading and swapping efforts are expected in the House to try and bring about a campaign reporting bill the major parties will accept. We hope the horse traders won't end up trading away the meat of the bill in the process. 3 In early March of 1974, the State Journal reported that House Democrats and Republicans had "ironed out major points of difference over a campaign finance disclosure 1". . . And Democrats Shun a Duty," Detroit Free Press, December 23, 1973, p. 2-B. 2"Don't Cheer Yet," Lansing State Journal, Jan- uary 20, 1974’ p. A-Bo 31bid. h.. I. “A‘ kiwi In... V _' O-l by] a- u "" A. ' in‘ In ..." V. ,_‘_..‘~ ' D . u”.'~ fill- >- l“....i ...‘ n . .n nA.~. ”av ‘ K a. vu..~.‘~. ‘ 9 l “I. . . . ‘ § I: "~ In. U-.‘ .‘Q; ‘ ’ ‘\'t.. n i I Q'. . - ' .:s:~ .- unuyu“ ... ’L I l ‘ '. V \v...‘:.. M u H I I R . v':-.":= .~ . ‘g. k. h I - .“~‘I ‘fi * u in '- ‘I ~.\-“ -. n 1 “ fi‘.. J, . . ‘ ‘\. A II '- v ‘.: u I ‘q 51“ -: ‘ ‘, .l . '\ Ni. \ § 11“. ‘ “ - A i“ #. ' -. VJ - I “ ~ K. . ‘ \’ - v": 22 bill."1 House Speaker William Ryan (D-Detroit) and House Minority Leader Dennis O. Cawthorne (RrManistee), agreed on areas of difference (including a major exemption to reporting "in-kind" contributions). "The next step is selling the compromise to the House Policy Committee which is considering the bill," Cawthorne commented.2 But the House Policy Committee placed "loopholes" in the bill before reporting it out of committee in late March. A Detroit Free Press editorial on April 1, 1974, blasted the lawmakers and said, "All the members of the Michigan House of Representatives should work to plug the loopholes that have now been placed in the campaign financ- ing reform bill by the House Policy Committee."3 It would appear that the previous Ryan-Cawthorne agreement had not held up. Political reform apparently did not have full bipartisan support at that time. The State Journal stated that "Democrats must be wary of being open to the charge of promoting watered-down l"Campaign Bill Ironed Out," Lansing State Journal, March 10, 1974, p. 3-10. 21bid. 3"Legislature Must Eliminate Loopholes in Reform Bill," Detroit Free Press, April 1, 1974, p. lO-A. I "'4' IOuA. I ‘ - out“ II‘II.‘. . ‘ l p. ‘. A n... " .V‘ -F‘ inc! | "‘p ‘5 Us a ”w" " but. . .‘:_ o., .0‘.‘ .v. " .- :-: "A c I.'~.. ' 9"...-.". a..." ;‘ 'I.. ‘ -.. P1 .. A 5. r, W U ‘§ In,“ ~_.‘ . ~ ‘! h-H‘ e.‘_: ::“n 'n.= I A. h a“ s... o 'I t‘ :‘ ”A vs.‘ v- “N '.'.! ‘ ‘ “‘ b :. ‘- a . H . ~ I‘ : ‘I "~ H. ‘\ 23 legislation," and that "Governor Milliken branded it (the bill) a 'sham' and a 'farce' and GOP leaders derided it as full of loopholes."1 The article stated: "Milliken is in a good posi— tion to take credit for meaningful reform or place the blame for lack of it on the Democrats."2 It should be noted, however, that several Repub- licans voted for the bill when it passed the House Policy Committee, with loopholes, and joined the Democratic ma- jority in supporting weakening amendments. The State Journal commented: It is expected younger Democrats may attempt to provide upper limits on spending and contri- butions. The plan gets little support from the leadership, and none at all from Milliken, who says disclosure is more important than limits on spending.3 Common Cause criticized the bill (Senate Bill 1016) in an "open letter to State Legislators" following the bill's approval in the House Policy Committee. Al Swerdlow of Oak Park, Common Cause--Michigan chairman, objected to 1 Malcolm Johnson, "Big Uproar Expected Over Cam- paign Reform," Lansing State Journal, April 1, 1974, p. 3-7. 21bid. 3Ibid. , - '4‘ A... .9: - v c I" who... “ . "'I~~.- ‘- n \ utohg..".' . \.. ‘ ":u‘Cm N“ 1 ‘\. 'uc- ‘ . s . i ‘C ‘ ‘ Q “ -‘ §‘~ “e V; 's‘: “ ‘ I... I «sue \"y . -.:v. Q ““‘ & H ‘ f ‘l I ". . n ( \ a s “N “\ I 1 24 the enforcement provision, lack of contribution and expen- diture limits, and inadequate definition of "in-kind" con- tributions. The citizens' lobby also criticized the tech- nical language of the bill. A State Journal article quoted Swerdlow as saying, "Many of its (the bill's) provisions are so poorly and inconsistently worded that they could never be criminally enforced or understood by an intelli- gent person."1 In essence, Common Cause strongly chided the Legis- lative efforts as not going far enough and of containing loopholes and inadequacies. In addition, the citizens group was gaining a sort of notoriety in political circles. Perhaps they were hitting "too close to home." A Grand Rapids Press editorial in February had commented that "Common Cause is known as Common Curse by some political operatives, and not without reason."2 The editorial was, in general, complimentary to the group: The privately funded organization has had surprising and considerable success in areas lucopen Letter' Harsh," Lansing State Journal, April 7, 1974, p. A-lO. 2"Common Cause and Secrecy," Grand RapidS'PreSS: February 22, 1974, p. lO-A. . u -. . ‘ II a. ... . . a. :m e: . . . s .: .._. I. u. c. a» n; :~ g: .3 .s 1. Z. 2. . ... .. .u .. _.. S e. s. .- .... .... .e . . . . . 2. A ~ u a s s y e s . .\ a. .u :w is ,- y~ .- -. -.- e. ~ § - .\ a u no. .luuu o. N .I \‘ .-—c- 25 where others have failed--in lobbying for tough campaign reform laws, in fighting government secrecy and in forcing open votes in Congress.1 The editorial continued: Much of Common Cause's achievement can be credited to its persistent lobbying in the halls of public opinion and its ability to use the judicial system to its advantage. Either effort is more than most individuals can mount, but Common Cause, as its name implies, suc- ceeds through joint action.2 The editorial, written in response to a House Re- publican aide's irritation at Common Cause for not offering a cepy of the group's membership roster to the Republicans to use for a mailing, criticized the Republican complaint. (The Republican was angry and suggested that by not sharing its membership list, Common Cause was guilty of the same practice for which it criticizes lawmakers--concealing sources of financial support.) The point was, according to the Grand Rapids Press, that while Common Cause operated in the political arena, "its efforts are directed at non- partisan goals."3 The Press criticized the complainant who attempted "to compare the privacy of political donations to 11bid. 2Ibid. 3Ibid. Q .... ,. ma. .. In on. ‘ .. AI'u .- on... :V c..." i I I . 3"4". cc...“ '1 r... 1 N.. , . ‘Ina ~..: v\g. 'en1 ..‘ ...I . ‘6‘..‘ ‘n I :¢‘~ l--,~. ‘- ‘7 “ . _._ ‘u! ‘. ‘§ . ‘\ .' p ‘ I i‘. ‘C . 5 l . '- ‘ Eh; ‘ ‘4 '1 *. s‘ \ t‘\. ‘ 26 that claimed by Common Cause."1 The editorial pointed out that Common Cause "can legislate nothing and can enforce nothing," and, like any other private organization, "it is accountable only to its members, not a political constitu- ency. It is simply not a gear in the governing machine."2 The editorial concluded: If a political party professional cannot understand those basic differences, then little wonder that Common Cause was created, and little wonder that it is considered a nuisance by some.3 It was obvious that Common Cause had "established clout" in Michigan in 1974. In an April 8 article in the Free Press, reporter William Meek wrote that the political reform bill was "weaker and more loophole-ridden than the existing state law it is supposed to correct."4 Both Governor Milliken and the Michigan chapter of Cbmmon Cause concluded that the political reform bill was too weak. Milliken said he would veto the bill if it E lIbid. 21bid. 31bid. _ William Meek, "LooPholes in Dems' Election Reforms CmtlCized," Detroit Free Press, April 8, 1974, p. 9-C. . I 3:34" 'n a """ ha. ‘ . "v. u . .In: .a .” ..-. .A 1' In m‘ P— VA. .- .- R» I. ". ‘ u .- f . no“: a:- v a . "5| ..9 k“ .‘ (I: b 27 passed in its present form. "What is likely at this junc- ture is that a workable bill won't clear the Legislature in time to affect the 1974 elections," according to the Free Press article.l "House Policy Committee members made it clear they are not willing to trim back any of the advantages they already enjoy," the article continued.2 "Democrats favor limits on individual donations but most of them don't want to put similar limits on contributions from organizations like labor unions."3 Common Cause received more editorial acclaims in late April. In an editorial titled "An Uncommonly Good Cause," the Free Press noted Common Cause's growing member- ship throughout the country, "as average citizens seek a more effective voice in their governments and greater re- 3ponsiveness from their elected officials."4 More to the point, the editorial zeroed in on an important priority of the national citizens' lobby: __ 11bid. 21bid. 3Ibid. . 4"An Uncommonly Good Cause," Detroit Free Press, “”11 26, 1974, p. A—a, NCS ' ‘ .:"' Van MI.H .5» 'fl":' 6 -u .u. no”..- Vi‘.=.’ 1c?“ ‘D:o. "' nu \ n- :‘D:‘ V no.... :‘A .a. ‘u‘ .Qa-u a ,.I - u. .. "K.:"'QV 5 .5. FF)“; fl." t‘u.‘ \ p. «n.- N '"\:" .‘u * i' L ... i u 1“ : ‘ . :~ _A f V ‘\ ? .I «.1 O... N “: FAN! N. ‘n I ‘5 ‘ L_A 28 No single group in the country has worked as hard recently for the American ideals of govern- mental ethics and integrity. Along the way, of course, these efforts by sincere, average citi- zens have ruffled the feathers of some politi- cians who would like to keep politics and public affairs behind closed doors and continue to run and finance their political campaigns far from public scrutiny. The editorial seemed to be "inspired" by remarks of State Senator James D. Gray (D-Warren), who had recently referred, in writing, to Common Cause as "this communist cause" group. The editorial offered commentary on Senator Gray's hiring of a person, in 1972, on the state payroll at taxpayer expense, to run his campaign for Congress. This use of tax money to hire campaign workers is precisely the type of unethical conduct which Common Cause and others are trying to eliminate.2 In conclusion, and as a commendatory Common Cause comment, the editorial stated: "There is a moral: It helps to know from whence criticism comes."3 In the meantime, the political reform bill was on the House calendar for floor debate. lIbid. 21bid. 31bid. ‘r'< ' .J' fi?‘ \l‘..-‘ '.—'- - - .I-..'~. - . 'Mv.:-D .- .. . K .‘ ‘ C.— .. .. “v.” "L" A. "-c- v. ' n ‘ . . a" h...~ ‘- 5F- . ‘~~u..‘ \ F- ."V' v“ a. H._ fjucl b 2 (.I I 29 After days of debate on the floor, the bill was de- feated in a 41-58 vote, 15 votes short of passage. The Democrats could count only the core of their party's vote, as 12 Democrats abandoned the bill, "seven of them in a group of younger lawmakers who claimed the measure was weak and meaningless in its reform. The Republican side stood just one vote short of unanimous opposition."1 The Demo- crats moved to reconsider the vote on another day of ses- sion. The article reported that "The GOP, taking its cue from Governor William G. Milliken, balked at a $25.00 'floor' which provided that campaign donors of $25.00 or less could remain unidentified."2 Milliken said the bill was "not sufficient," but said there was still time for the Legislature "to enact reform legislation that will assure that our political system is open, accountable and unbought."3 Common Cause had supported the $25.00 floor, how— ever--which Republicans objected to so strongly. The 1Malcolm Johnson, "Campaign Reform Loses," Lansing State Journal, April 26, 1974, p. B-2. 21bid. 3 Ibid. "in. g., . c ‘3‘:::' ::‘c: ""'~- hue» ( t n ... .-~ N- p "H' “an: n .16 0. § .4 IV ‘ N ‘61 o... d.‘ ‘IV a' - LI «A... -,.‘ .- OVI.‘ cg,- :‘c:.~‘~ '\ fu...u°. I - .‘~. qu“ ~V‘l ~ I .‘h , - ~.: "A .I uh.‘ My. .I ‘ ‘- ‘vl ‘C _ '0 v. .IA‘ "-E h. “v i ‘ ‘ \ 'v‘-~' I .. ~ ' ‘M‘ h 8. ~ . .8 ‘ H l- 0‘. ‘\"-._ ‘ A V ‘ h- ‘5 r‘ \p 30 press hardly noted this. Such a limit, the citizens' lobby had stated, was needed in local races "where low budgets necessitate grass-roots fund-raising which often depends on hot dogs and bumper-sticker events."1 The "Kiddy Caucus" (young, aggressive, liberal, generally first-term legislators) Democrats, who felt the bill did not go far enough, condemned the lack of spending and donation limits and no move toward public financing of campaigns. Representative Howard Wolpe (D-Kalamazoo) ex- pressed the thoughts of the "Kiddy Caucus" and said the bill "continues the unjust campaign process which favors the rich and powerful."2 House Speaker William Ryan reacted strongly to the show of Republican muscle: "It may be the death knell of campaign reform in this state . . . . The Governor's order to vote no and make a political point was a serious mistake in principle."3 Following the House defeat of the political reform :measure, Common Cause was again commended editorially in 1"'Open Letter' Harsh," op. cit. 2Malcolm Johnson, "Campaign Reform Loses," Lansing State Journal, April 26, 1974, p. B-2. 3Ibid. LU' .. n 3. F‘ c" I" ll! 31 the State Journal on April 29. The article discussed citizen groups which "have started to pick up steam" and said "several have now become strong forces in the nation's capitol as well as the state levels."1 Discussing "sharp blasts" delivered in recent months at Common Cause, the editorial stressed Common Cause's own recent statement that "members come from all walks of life, all political parties, and there is no secret about its operations."2 The article noted that in Lansing, Michigan, Common Cause was regis- tered as a lobbying organization, and Furthermore, both the national and state offices have pledged to make full disclosure of their lobby expenditures, a disclosure that goes be- yond present laws. All this is exactly what Common Cause and other citizen lobbies are asking lawmakers to do.3 An alliance between Common Cause and the press seemed to be building up, as the political reform measure, and Common Cause's pleas for openness and disclosure, were gaining momentum in Michigan's state Capitol. l"Feeling Heat?," Lansing State Journal, April 29, 1974, p. A-lO. 21bid. 31bid. ' I ova”... .— .'.I-a“ ‘-‘A. w. - -v u . -:ow n... u... “‘ .‘A.. ‘. ' “.1 d "- D. . \u " . “5 5 . .:.u ‘_ 'D -‘ .- H.‘ .e h." ‘ .~ . \‘ < - d 32 "The criticism of this organization appears to be unfounded and perhaps results from the fact that heat is building up in the kitchen," the editorial continued.1 "Common Cause may be making life a bit uncomfortable for a few lawmakers who still resist the bitter medicine of finance disclosure. Too bad . . . . It's something that should have been done years ago."2 The Detroit Free Press commented editorially April 29 about the political reform bill, commending the majority of the Michigan House of Representatives for act- ing "wisely in rejecting the version of the campaigani- nancing reform bill that House Speaker Ryan is trying to get passed."3 "It is not a good bill in its present form because it would not require the full and complete disclosure of all campaign contributions."4 The editorial reported Mr. Ryan's argument that this "loophole" was "designed to pro- tect the privacy of small contributors," but the Free Press lIbid. 21bid. 3"Seeking a Better Reform Bill," DatrOit Free Press, April 29, 1974, p. A-l4. 41bid. l u... \ 5.“... “v ‘0 1.1” ; ('1' l 1 33 stressed the $25.00 floor "is nothing more than a guise for evading the intent of the reform legislation, which.is and should be full disclosure."1 Unbeknownst to its readers that day, however, the Free Press was to do a turn-around in support of the 1975 legislation, by editorially endorsing a $50.00 reporting floor for campaign contributors' name disclosure. A "May Day” message to lawmakers, printed in a May 1 editorial in the Lansing State Journal, stated the political reform bill defeat "was caused by continued in- sistence of a Democratic majority on watering down the measure," and stated the "issue on this bill is full and open campaign financing disclosure."2 In late May, the House did squeeze through, 56-49, the election financing reform bill, with most of the "loop— holes," as they were called, still included. Only three of the Democratic members voted "no" with the block of Repub- licans. H. Lynn Jondahl (D-East Lansing) and Earl Nelson (D-Lansing) were two who held out for contribution and expenditure limits. lIbid. 2"'May Day' Message to Lawmakers," May 1, 1974' Lansing State Journal, p. A—l6. 34 The bill was sent back to the Senate for approval. In a State News article it was stated "Senate Democrats, who hold a slim one-vote majority, are apparently eager to ratify this weak House bill as is, perhaps in a cheap par— tisan challenge to Milliken to veto a reform package in an election year."1 The student newspaper concluded: But, if Michigan citizens are not to be once again slapped in the face by their public ser- vants, the Senate must do what is right and force the House to close these lOOpholes--in time to reform political campaigns in this elec- tion year. To not do so and still call this bill reform would be an exercise in massive public deception.2 On May 23 the State Journal reported: Unless a bill to revamp the state's campaign finance law is changed to require complete dis- closure of all contributors, Governor Milliken says he may veto it.3 The article quoted the Governor: "It is not a cam- paign finance reform bill. It's a campaign loophole bill and I want no part of it."4 1"Senate Must Improve Campaign Reform Bill," Mich- igan State News, May 20, 1974, p. 4. 21bid. 3"Campaign Bill Blasted," Lansing State Journal, May 23, 1974, p. 3-14. 4Ibid. "-u_ n n.“ ... ~-, A ‘ u. I ‘ .H ‘q ll- I s \- u‘ ‘ I . ' 7 ‘ I \ .;‘ 'k‘ls‘ ‘ I m ..~ . \ \ “ ‘ § 35 The $25.00 floor was becoming the key issue in the campaign reform measure. If the Governor vetoed a bill on the basis of the "floor," he would Open himself to charges of opposing campaign finance reform at a time when he was running for re-election. Democrats were accusing Republi- cans of favoring total disclosure "only to bog Democrats down in paperwork after nickle—and-dime fund raisers at union halls."1 It was noted that "with a disciplined vote, Senate Democrats could toss the thorny election-year bouquet to the Governor this week."2 The April death of Senator Anthony Stamm (R- Kalamazoo) gave the Democrats a 19—18 majority edge in the Senate, for the first time since 1966. They would maintain that margin at least until the June 25 special election to fill Stamm's seat. All 19 Democratic members answered Senate roll calls and Senate Democratic Floor Leader Jerome Hart of Saginaw was quoted as saying "we'll all be there."3 l"Dems Flexing Campaign Reform Muscle," Lansing State Journal, May 10, 1974, p. B-6. 31bid. “I-u .‘ 'I“ ... ..,'a . I N I.... ~ "v.. ‘.“. ‘ (1| U I‘ 2‘- ‘ I ‘F. ‘ u 0“.- .. . I.-. ‘ - s~‘ ‘- 36 Press articles in mid-May commented on Governor Milliken's expressed hope that the State Senate reject the reform bill in its present form and send it to a conference committee. "A bipartisan conference committee report could still bring about compromise acceptable to Milliken who has threatened to veto the bill if it is not strengthened," reported the Lansing State Journal.1 "There is still time for a conference committee to do the job between now and the summer legislative recess and every effort should be directed to that goal."2 Michigan Common Cause chairman Al.Swerdlow was quoted as saying, "Short of a highly unlikely miracle in a joint conference committee, it appears Michigan voters need not expect to benefit from campaign reform in this year's election."3 On May 26, the Detroit News published a feature article on Common Cause and its "one-woman gang lobbying 1"CampaignBill Still Has Chance," Lansing State Journal, May 17, 1974, p. 3-8. 2Ibid. 3"Dems Gearing Up," Lansing State Journal, May 16, 1974’ p. A-6o . V'vn- rum-.. ' F's. . ‘ Vow. . H" '1. I L: .. ".1 A. Inn. y. “.w-. I. “v. u 1 .s‘. N ‘ d I ,J- J ’ I; “v '. a .- hz‘ O‘ . “I ‘ . M: .\ h. “I I - h “ “A v- H‘ 3-...“ \:I,~‘ ‘Q 7‘ \‘._ ~ \ ,- ‘h ‘- ‘ h ‘. 37 coordinator" Leslie F. Lokken.l Although the News included a picture of someone who was NOT Mrs. Lokken (a retraction was run later), the article was basically complimentary of the citizens group, with a "catchy" beginning: “Busybody do-gooders or the conscience of the Legislature: Which best describes the men and women of Michigan Common Cause?"2 The article continued: They have been cussed as the former and praised as the latter during the brief eight months since the state affiliate of the na- tional "citizens' lobby" was formed last September (1973). The organization has been dubbed "Com- munist Cause," "Common Curse".and perhaps.a. few deleted expletives. But even its enemies concede that, for its size, it has exerted an unusual amount of influence.3 The question is asked, "Why?", Leslie Lokken, Common Cause lobbying coordinator, answered "Mainly because we have zeroed in on only a few issues rather than spreading ourselves too thin."4 1Glenn Engle, "They Lobby for Common Cause," Detroit News, May 26, 1974, p. A-lO. 21bid. 3Ibid. 4Ibid. "’;' I .L...e . u ;' I-"I -h- 1...: ‘. al.‘.fi ‘- 38 She admitted that after virtually every House or Senate committee move or floor action, she headed back to her "modest office" a block from the Capitol and "cranks out a news release of praises or condemnation."1 Michigan Common Cause claimed a paid membership of 10,600 in May 1974, compared with a national total of 325,000. Statewide membership approached 12,000 in 1975. Members pay an annual $15.00 fee to the national organiza— tion. The Michigan group is financed by any additional money its state members opt to contributer It had been claimed, by some state lawmakers, that Common Cause, "despite its public pronouncements in behalf of openness in government, was a secret organization that refused to cpen its membership rolls to public inspection."2 Mrs. Lokken replied that a computer printout of names and addresses of Michigan members was available for public viewing in her office. And when asked if Common Cause would "just fade away" when current areas of concern are taken care of, .Leslie Lokken responded, "Oh no, it's here to stay. There lIbid. 21bid. *5 II gu- ' fina 1: "~\H . "V-‘- n s . I a ‘ - 2‘ I ' v" '1 ~.- _" =~ ."“ ‘ul . ...~. . \ "o. .F s 50_.. h‘ g w..’ ‘4 Q.“ ' --_‘V'. ‘- ”C. 5‘ . - s._“‘ u,‘ ‘I . ull.‘ ‘\‘ ' \ '“sl‘ ‘P. a s..‘ -I ' u‘- I ‘ I.‘ ‘5 fi 39 are a lot of other issues when these are solved. But for . . l the present we're concentrating on just a few." The East Lansing Towne Courier, a weekly circulated in the East Lansing-Okemos-Haslett area near Lansing, stated that Representative H. Lynn Jondahl (D-East Lansing) voted against the reform bill because "it doesn't address what I see as major problems of financing, and it doesn't limit the amount spent by the individual or by a contrib- utor."2 The article also strongly stated that Michigan Common Cause had denounced the bill. Jondahl, an avowed liberal, feared the bill's passage "will_give the people only minor reforms." Representative Jondahl was one of only three Democrats who voted against passage of the bill when it finally passed the House, 56-49. A Detroit Free Press editorial June 2 sharply crit- icized the Legislators, and the Democrats in particular, for "strangling" political reform in 1974.3 The article stated: lIbid. 2"Campaign Finance Bill Termed 'Weak,'" Towne Courier, May 29, 1974. 3"Legislators Are Crippling Essential Political Refonms," Detroit Free Press, June 2, 1974, p. A-lZ. 40 The movement for reform of Michigan's polit- ical system is now being slowly and painfully strangled in the state Legislature in Lansing. Shortsightedness and an overabundance of petty self-interest on the part of too many legis- lators, especially Democrats, are the reasons.1 The editorial continued: Too many legislators want no reform at all; others, especially the Democrats, see nothing improper in a bill that does not require full public disclosure of all campaign contributions, regardless of size, and regardless of whether they are made in the form of money or valuable services and materials. Some of Michigan's most influential unions, which have long stood for progressive and open government, have sadly en- couraged these efforts to riddle and weaken the bill. The editorial urged a Milliken veto "unless the bill is materially strengthened, and the lOOpholes removed."3 It would not be possible to enact meaningful reform in time for the November 1974 elections. The editorial concluded: This was clearly the year for reform. Despite the good advice of such statewide Demo- cratic leaders as Sander Levin, a candidate for Governor now, the Democrats in the Legislature have failed to recognize that fact. In so doing, they are foisting a heavy election-year lIbid. 31bid. u can. u . - non-AA ”F. l... 23...: “'~'--. 5'- u v.‘ ‘1‘ hi; ““ g“ ‘ \. . ‘ h H‘ ‘ l‘ ‘V‘.‘ . . .Ln .‘ ‘ ~.__- ‘- b..‘ I l, . . ’V-‘ N «5": V; ‘ “. . ~ ‘ “if-'1‘. 3"” h .0! ‘..H r . . ..‘ 3., N: “ ~ . "‘-4~ : I m; ‘ ...‘ s, ‘ by . ~ .. ,.- ‘ ‘ "‘5: “A ~n ‘ “\< u, ‘ : .‘ .‘ ‘ H ":‘25- N“ ‘ “ ‘ N ’! .."“‘ ‘~l-‘ ‘ “, v 41 albatross on the Michigan Democratic Party and all its candidates.1 The press gave minimal attention to the Common Cause stance which was in basic agreement Wlth the Democratic- backed section regarding the $25.00 floor-~an issue which would play an important role in the 1975 political reform sequence as well. But the press would view the "floor" from a different perspective at that later time. On June 3, the State Journal, in an article about the national governor's conference in Seattle, Washington, noted that the conference's executive committee had approved a "broad resolution" Sponsored by Michigan's Governor Mil— liken and Patrick J. Lucey (D—Wisconsin), calling for reforms "at all levels of government."2 This was at the same time President Nixon was re- fusing to supply additional evidence sought by the U.S. House Judiciary committee's impeachment probe, and by spe- cial Watergate prosecutor Leon Jaworski. _ lIbid. 2"Governors Avoiding Scandal Speculation,“ State JOurnal, June 3, 1974, p. A-3. In a n.‘ hvw ‘ I ““nna .V ~Iv... . Q :‘r. :N \ fl~ - ‘ us ' A .‘ I“ '..~ ~ ‘§ ‘ :9. ~:'~. ‘.~$ H u“v~. \. .. ‘~- 'o5 I ‘ I 42 Governor Milliken was now on the line, on a na- tional as well as a state level, as an outspoken advocate of "loophole-free" campaign finance reforms. Also at the same time, California voters went to the polls in a June primary and gave overwhelming approval to "a Watergate-inspired reform measure which imposes the strictest campaign spending laws in the nation."1 The mea- sure, known as "PrOposition IX" (a 20,000 word ballot ques- tion), was backed by the Democratic gubernatorial victor in the state primary, California Secretary of State Edmund G. Brown, Jr., who made the fight for Proposition IX a basic part of his successful campaign for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. That reform measure was opposed strongly by labor, but won by a 3-1 margin. Backers of the tough new campaign measure, which was placed on the ballot by a Common Cause- backed initiative referendum, advertised it "as a model for national legislation to prevent further such scandals as Watergate."2 1"California Voters Approve Strictest Campaign Code," Detroit Free Press, June 6, 1974, p. A—l6. 21bid. . 1hr. “wt-baf-m' h "v-. _ "-0~‘ I"! 43 Opposition to Proposition IX was led by the AFL—CIO, which withdrew its support of Brown over the issue (and turned to San Francisco mayor Joseph Alioto). "Also Oppos- ing the proposition were the ADA, Americans for Democratic Action; farm labor leader Cesar Chevaz; Republicans; and Conservatives . . . . Opponents called it 'overkill' and said it was a possible unconstitutional limitation on the right of free speech."1 Major restraints on Common Cause's relationship with Organized Labor and other groups opposing the measure, resulted from Common Cause's active support of Proposition IX. "The smashing victory for political reform in Cali- fornia is a message that ought to be understood by every- one, and especially by state legislators here in Michigan," a Free Press editorial on June 6 stated.2 Pushed by Common Cause, the citizens lobby, Proposition IX will go even further toward re- form than the generally good reform measures Governor Milliken has been prodding the Michigan Legislature, with little success, to pass," 1Ibid. Ibid. H 5II‘ ‘- u " | :‘u. . n .. A _ .n "V y- uv.,..‘ . .4 ‘ v-< n'“ :5 Hug a“. II. A. N V' U... Id.." V . ._ ‘ .. v‘.-. ~.. . ah...“-‘.' . \A I “'5 h- . e. h n e. .‘ u.‘ I.‘ u,“ n .. "“ Q n‘ F- '5 .... ~..': h U Q 5“ ‘ \f ‘- I h ...e 2; . y . . p --~ 7."! ‘1'; c. "‘n I ‘ .II t I‘:§ ‘~. . ‘ ‘Vt‘rg \ ~. I" ._‘ I 3 y. ‘n. J ‘. , . t.“ 44 the editorial continued. "The California Legislature had resisted the efforts for reform in that state, so Common Cause went to the people in an initiative campaign."l An interesting point was that the most strict Cali- fornia proposal only required a candidate to report the name and address and amount of just those contributions of $50.00 or more--which was twice what the Democratic version in Michigan was advocating. So many special-interest groups fought against Proposition IX (labor unions and powerful business groups mounted a $200,000 campaign to defeat the prOposal), that "in the end, only the people favored it. rBut~they did in overwhelming numbers."3 The Free Press commented that the victory ought to "convince politicians everywhere, even here in Michigan," that the peOple "want politics cleaned up and made more Open, and that they want the kind of campaign financing disclosure the people of California have now written into law."4 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 4Ibid. -. AI . .~ ~ 1. . - . . a . .n 2" Y L. v. i. v. .m L. ~. . .... . ~ .t o . 2. v. .3 1 .. _. a L. a .. . . . . ... :— :. . u . g .. :— ..u . w . s .9. .s. .. ~ \ u u. i C . an. .5 ‘ h . an I § ‘ \ .uu O n ....- .2" .u... .- p. “H :- . In v Q rigidity 9hr} urfii .J n us.r«.....mi I 45 The editorial continued: "The contrast between what the voters have approved in California and what the Legislature in Michigan is refusing to accept is marked."1 The editorial also made mention of national Common Cause chairman John Gardner's speech to the National Gov— ernor's Conference in Seattle, when Gardner commended and praised 42 states for their efforts and responsiveness toward political reform. Michigan was one of only eight states specifically excepted from that praise. ‘(And Mich- igan's Governor had co-sponsored a strong reform resolution at that same conference.)2 "It is sad that Michigan's Legislature is one of the few in the nation, as John Gardner points out, that is asleep during this period of reform and resurgence of in- tegrity in government," the Free Press lamented. "The people of Michigan are the losers, and they should not forget how badly their legislators are failing them and . . . . . 3 their own respon31b111ties." 11bid. 21bid. 31bid. 46 The first Open talk and public pronouncements about the possibility of a petition drive in Michigan, similar to the California strategy, was discussed by Governor Milliken in a Lansing Press Conference on June 6, upon his return from the National Governor's Conference.l Milliken said he might "lead a petition drive to force action on campaign and election reforms similar to those taken by California voters earlier this week," unless the Legislature "comes up with something in the closing weeks of its session."2 The petition route "is one avenue which I already have begun to explore," the Governor announced. He added, however, that he had not "abandoned hope" for the current legislation bogged down in the Michigan Senate.3 One of Milliken's main objections to the Democratic version of the reform bill was to the $25.00 "floor." He was urging that every nickel "be reported by name and address."4 1Glenn Engle, "May Take Campaign Reform to Voters, Milliken Warns," Detroit News, June 7, 1974, p. 7. 21bid. 31bid. 41bid. :u H» .r 1 - I4 v n I Q . voh‘. F u .‘ A. q . . v o h u I... ‘4 I «\u ' . c u u o i H I ' . U '33.. l .1. C~ A. ... . . a y .g. s p v a . -\~ no. . U..." 47 The Governor, at his press conference, explained he was "just endorsing the route" of a petition drive. "Just what would be in the package remains to be worked II 1 out, he stressed. The Detroit News article noted that: Michigan Common Cause, which has led the drive from outside for political reform in this state, played a similar role in Cali- fornia. Its leaders chose the results there to remind Michigan lawmakers that they have a like move in mind here.2 The petition drive concept to enact political re- form measures in Michigan was now in the open, and under serious discussion and consideration. Other editorials in early June dealt with the astounding California reform ballot prOposal, and Governor Milliken's consideration of a reform referendum. "A cit- izen reform bill may be the best answer in the long run anyway since too many lawmakers here . . . seem to be bent on 'business as usual' as it applies to campaign finances and lobbyist activities."3 lIbid. 21bid. 3"California Message to Michigan," Lansing State Journal, June 9, 1974, p. A-lO. ff.“ u... -‘ o..- ,- ‘f‘ “'b:» 'V ~. .~':. ~‘ u. _‘-" . I n. W \.' u.‘ " .0.‘ I . ‘ . n .“ -‘._ -I\ z... - -~ . . ~. I _~:.,. .‘V-_‘ '. 5 '-. 3 . I H . I‘ ‘ 5 ' v- u“ § -« . -- - . ‘I- § V~ . . .. ‘ :.“:.-u ‘. -" . s \ I. \.~‘ ‘~._ I p. R, - ‘ s I . h‘ .‘ .- .‘ ~‘ -\ 48 A Free Press editorial June 12 noted that leaders of Common Cause would be meeting within the week to decide what to do about a possible petition drive. "We would urge them to press forward as soon as possible with a petition campaign," encouraged the paper, and "we also do not mind saying at this stage that the Free Press will do all it 1 reasonably can to support and aid such an effort." Astounding! A commitment from the second most widely circulated newspaper in the state had been given, voluntarily. Such a gesture could not be taken lightly! The petition route would not be easy, however. To put a political reform package on the November 1974 ballot would require 212,492 valid signatures, or 300,000 total signatures to assure enough valid ones.2 According to state law, after sufficient signatures are obtained, the Legislature has 40 days to pass the pro- posed law if it wishes. To qualify for the November ballot, then, 300,000 signatures would have to be obtained by July 8, less than a month from the time the article was 1"Petition Drive Could Let Voters Decide on Reform." Detroit Free Press, June 12, 1974, p. A-8. 2Ibid. nu "'P I... h ‘ 'flroou...“ 1" I 'D~ .‘ ‘hgd d u.‘ .. y u R's 'Ovn .1 LL. .- 3 u ‘5 L" '. 49 published. Considering that petitions would have to be drawn up, printed and distributed, "that is an apparent impossibility," the paper admitted. "But this summer and fall might not be too early a time to begin such a peti- tion drive" for 1976, the editorial encouraged. For one thing, the drive itself might help state legislators see the need for action. For another, there is a chance that a statewide election could be held before 1976 . . . and that would allow such a petition drive to reach the ballot earlier than two yearsfromnow.2 The editorial continued: We think it is clear that the public, in— fluenced by the scandals of Watergate, wants reform of its laws dealing with election cam- paigns and politics. Legislators in Cali- fornia, like those in Michigan so far, have not understood this public mood. The Cali— fornia Legislature did not pass reform bills. Led by Common Cause, the people went to the ballot. Despite the strong opposition of big business and big labor, the people of Cali- fornia approved the reform package by a 3-to-1 margin. We believe the same public mood for re- form exists here in Michigan. The issues are too important to allow them to be killed or gutted by irresponsible state legislators. What needs to be done includes writing an effective law requiring full disclosure of all campaign financing, and effective laws lIbid. 21bid. .~\ . u ‘4 1 ‘ 1 I. 1 . .. z. :. F~ . a t. .‘ a: .2 vs 2‘ 2. . . .... i. :A Q. 2‘ ..._ _s .n« a C l. ...\ . n v. .: . . . s l. .a u. . ~ . . ... ~. . . L‘ s . z. .5. v~ »\ a u a v. ..v n u . t n . ‘4‘ -Q - s - ... g .l. o x . n .«c Q. . ‘ 50 dealing with lobbyists, secrecy in government, reasonable disclosure of the financial hold— ings of public officials and conflict of in- terest by legislators. The initiative route offers the best way for reform—minded citizens and politicians to make sure, despite the Legislature's lack of attention, that the political system in Mich- igan is cleaned up.1 Obviously the editorial board of the Free Press was behind comprehensive reform. It was going to be up to the peOple to respond, since the 1973-74 Legislative session did not appear receptive to enacting strict reform measures. Common Cause executive board members met, and se— lected November's general election day as the starting time for a petition drive on political reform.2 The intent would be to obtain enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot in the 1976 general election. Common Cause voted to meet with gubernatorial candidates, citizens, and various organizations about the measure, and announced that a preliminary draft of the petition would be available in early September, when the group planned to hold hearings throughout the state to obtain citizen reactions. lIbid. 2"Political Reform Drive Set," Lansing State Journal, June 19, 1974, p. B-lO. :“Io on... .' .5. 't ~..'. . .. .— ‘I... e . A.‘ ‘o. : I; R'“ ': v-'. 1 xx » ~.. ~- . ‘hh -" “n 4 .‘ a n ‘ q I ‘3‘ .‘b“ ‘. I ‘ u‘::~ . . bu: ‘. ‘O u! ‘Q \ b. ‘.‘A .‘vN ‘ 5 1 ‘V - u ‘v‘ :’ ‘ n‘ l , V . a s I 51 In late June a State Journal editorial commented that "It is worth noting that a citizen campaign in Cali- fornia finally brought about a political campaign finance reform bill which was considerably tougher than the legis- lative version." The editorial noted: "Michigan voters might end up doing the same if lawmakers continue to side- step on these reforms."1 On July 1 the Free Press commented that if the Michigan Legislature failed to act on campaign reform soon, "the only recourse for citizens may be an initiative effort on the California model." The editorial continued, "That tedious process will take time, but it could result in a stronger set of controls than the Legislature would enact."2 The editorial noted that Michigan voters were ex- pressing concern for reform at the polls. When Represen- tative Robert Traxler was elected to Congress, his tradi- tional Democratic House district elected a young Republican 1"Call to Action," Lansing State Journal, June 27, 1974, p. A-lO. 2 . "Legislature Must Answer to Voters About Reform," Detroit Free Press, July 1, 1974, p. A-12. can, C I C In... .A‘ u— hbil .V‘ 52 woman, Colleen House, who had campaigned largely on the . . . 1 need for campaign finanCing reform. The article stressed: Unless the Democrats understand the public yearning for a more open government and respond to it, they may well find themselves on the defensive in Michigan despite Watergate. They could easily forfeit whatever advantage the troubles of the national Republican adminis- tration might otherwise have given them by legislative inaction.2 In conclusion: Politicians have perceived this (campaign finance reform) as a threat, but it could well be for many of them a means of libera- tion and a chance to make clear, once again, that politics can be an honorable profession.3 Strong words, for a strong subject. By the first part of July, too late to have any effect on the August 6 primary, the Senate Democrats and Republicans joined forces with Governor Milliken to send a compromise campaign finance reform bill back to the House for one last chance at passage. "Vote-conscious legis- lators have tried to work out a compromise on a campaign funding disclosure bill to take home and show off," stated the State Journal.4 lIbid. 21bid. 31bid. 41bid. a p. ya .- .~ - '-v I‘ 0 . . ."‘ A1 1 — .u~., . . ‘h a... I. (chalking: ~\~ u: nu! i .I .-\~ y. \ 5 ~\ ‘ \I I i ‘ ‘ . . -\~ A v s ._ .u‘u. ..\ t c . . ,. ..\ . a . . ~ .. u . n s \ 53 The compromise measure would call for the recording of names and addresses of persons contributing any amount to a candidate, although fund-raising events for under $10.00 would be exempt from the recording requirements. "In-kind" contributions would have to be accounted for. Expenditure limits on statewide campaigns were also in- cluded.1 House Speaker Ryan, according to the press, was not pleased with the compromise. Ryan wanted more dis- cussion, apparently. (Senate Democratic leaders, and Republicans in both houses, had met for five weeks of behind-the-scenes negotiations involving Milliken.)2 Among other things, according to the Free Press, "Ryan insisted on provisions to protect the identities of persons who make comparatively small donations, including union members who donate through their union dues."3 On July ll, a Thursday, the day before the final legislative session before adjournment (so legislators 1William Meek, "Senators, Milliken Join in Pushing Campaign Reform," Detroit Free Press, July 10, 1974, p0 A-3o 21bid. 31bid. "u L'fi‘.’ v :4an I" . '- 37$" o. in. VI.-‘ 54 could return to their districts to campaign in the August primary), the Senate passed the compromise reform measure, 30-4. In a race with the clock, lawmakers were trying to work out the compromise that would get the bill to the governor by keeping it out of a joint House-Senate confer- ence committee. The Detroit News reported: Pressure is mounting to have a ballot pro- posal--calling for reform not only in campaign finances, but lobbyist control, cpen meeting and full financial disclosure of all candi- dates--put to the voters next year. Common Cause and other citizens groups say they will begin on Election Day in November to start a petition drive that would take the perogative for writing a political reform package away from the lawmakers and give it directly to the voters. On July 13, following a marathon 22-hour House session, the House voted 87-0 to return the campaign reform bill to the Senate, which adjourned "minutes later" without taking final action. "State lawmakers have failed in a last-gasp effort to push a campaign finance reform bill to l"Campaign Fund Reform Racing the Clock," Lansing State Journal, July 10, 1974, p. B-6. 2Gary Schuster, "Reform in Vote Financing Doubt- ful for this Year," Detroit News, July 12, 1974, p. A-3. t"&_.—-— --- _ «nnq .- m.» DH»- '5 (I! .:‘.Y" n 55 final passage, and must wait at least until September for another crack at the controversial measure."1 A lengthy string of amendments, and "the crush of budget bills“ prevented the House from reaching a vote until near the end of its 22-hour session. The bill, “subject to heavy behind-the-scenes bargaining throughout its lengthy history," required the reporting of all cam- paign expenditures and contributions, and disclosure of contributors (except at some fund raisers) by name and address. “In-kind" contributions would have to be reported, also. "Debate on the important measure ended on a charac- teristic note of political acrimony, as weary legislators accused each other's party of foot-dragging, delaying tactics and efforts to gut the bill."2 The controversial measure would be placed on the State's agenda, for the third time, for final passage when the Legislature returned from summer recess Sep- tember 17. Governor Milliken, who had campaigned since October 1973 for reforms enacted in time to cover the 1974 lMalcolm Johnson, "Campaign Finance Bill Post- poned," Lansing State Journal, July 13, 1974, p. B-S. 21bid. 56 elections, reacted with the warning: "The people are not going to accept, and I certainly will not accept, legisla- tive failure to enact campaign reform."1 In a "recap" article, the Free Press noted that the reform bill "has had a bizarre legislative history since it was first introduced in the Republican-run Senate."2 The article noted that the bill had passed the Senate six months before, and House Democrats spent five months rewriting the bill, "largely to meet the objections of organized labor." The House-passed Version was de- nounced by Milliken as a "sham" bill "full of loopholes," and the Senate did not care for the House bill either. Milliken and staff spent another five weeks negotiating the bill, behind-the-scenes. Senate action, on the com- promise measure, was met with delays and opposition as it was returned to the House, which eventually voted in favor of it and sent it back to the Senate for action in Sep- tember.3 lWilliam Meek, "Legislature Delays Campaign Reform for This Year," Detroit Free Press, July 14, 1974, p. 8-A. 21bid. 3Ibid. 57 The Free Press commented on July 16: The greatest irresponsibility has been shown in the Legislature's failure to pass new laws that would clean up Michigan's system of financ- ing campaigns, and which would require disclos- ing the source of contributions to assure eth— ical government and ethical politics.l After discussing the need for the public to "weigh care- fully in the coming elections the performance of each in— cumbent seeking reelection," the article urged: There is another route that can be fol- lowed now to gain needed reform. It was used with success in California. That is the cit- izen petition route to put proposed new laws on the ballot. We would urge Governor Mil- liken and groups such as Common Cause to begin the work necessary to carry this effort for- ward. The Legislature has made it clear that it will not approve the kinds of reforms that are badly needed in Michigan. At a press conference July 18, Milliken appeared "to be running out of patience with the Legislature as an instrument for reforming Michigan campaign and election laws."3 Milliken said he was ready to "consider another l"Legislature Fails on Reform." Detroit Free Press, July 16, 1974, p. A-lO. 21bid. 3Glenn Eagle, "Milliken Turns to Common Cause for Campaign Election Reform," Detroit News, July 19, 1974, p. 9-A. 58 approach," and told newsmen he would sit down with leaders of Common Cause within the next week or so to discuss "whether we have a common basis for action."1 On September 18, the State Senate, on a 28-4 vote, gave final approval to the political reform bill, but, according to a lead article in the Free Press, the Michigan Legislature was "saved by its own inaction from having to campaign for election this year under a new disclosure law."2 The legislation would not take effect until the following April (1975), and the 1976 elections would be the first statewide elections in which the law would be effective. In essence, the law would require political candidates, office holders and campaign committees to report publicly the sources and amounts of contributions received, and report how the money was spent; expenditure limits would be in effect; office holders would be required to file disclosures on any fund raising while in office; public reports would be required regarding expenditures for ballot questions; candidates and office holders would lIbid. 2William Meek, "State Election Reforms OKd: Legis- lature Acts After Long Delay," Detroit Free Press, Sep- tember 19, 1974, p. 3-A. l”.- "AV~€ ' ‘ un.'y-v. . l | '-~V.'. . '9‘. c...-'.“l .‘ \ .I'fl H "JuJL.U. 59 have to file annual reports between elections; several categories of in-kind contributions would have to be re- ported; the Secretary of State would enforce the reporting requirements and make random audits of candidate reports; individuals who violated the law could be fined up to $1,000.00.1 lMichigan. Public Act 272 (1974). (Enrolled Senate Bill 1016). €.‘ . “~ " ._~~ : ‘I .~‘ . I \ s ‘. ‘ 5"" § .. § '. ‘A‘ .’."-.e ‘I '\ \_‘ . " ‘. 5‘. . Q . .. a \ ’ A HN‘ \ / CHAPTER II ADDITIONAL REFORMS NEEDED On September 30, the Free Press commented, editor- ially, that The campaign financing reform bill now finally passed by the Michigan Legislature is a good step along the long and complex road to overall political reform. But it is only one of many steps down that road.1 Discussing the needs for reform measures covering lobbyist regulations and disclosures, secrecy in government, and reasonable disclosure of the financial holdings of public officials, the article stated that "the campaign financing bill, which the state Senate finally passed . . . is far from the ultimate in dealing with the whole thicket of money and influence in political campaigns."2 The editorial stated it was a "shame and a sham" that the bill had not been passed in time to cover l"Michigan Political Reform Still Has Long Way To Go," Detroit Free Press, September 20, 1974, p. 6-A. 2 Ibid. 60 61 Michigan's 1974 state elections, and, pointedly, "In its sc0pe, the bill is far better than what many legislators wanted, and probably not as good as Michigan deserves."l The editorial noted that: Reports from Lansing indicate legislators are unlikely to act on the other needed reform measures this year. That being the case, Common Cause and any other interested reform groups would be well justified in proceeding to work up plans for a statewide political reform petition drive.2 The editorial emphasized that: Such a drive can aim at submitting the other reforms to the people of the state on the ballot, while also determining whether aspects of the new campaign financing law also need tightening up.3 In conclusion: "The Legislature has acted, but only belatedly. And it has not faced up yet to the other required reform measures that are pending before it."4 The battle was yet begun. Common Cause could only be heartened by the editorial support it was receiving, regarding its pending petition drive. lIbid. 21bid. 3Ibid. 4Ibid. .lf"' Ur .fi —; A‘ 'ba—p. .- -~~.v~..~‘l I ... .2. R _‘ A. n. ‘1 I..' Lulu "“ vni :‘v. .. :‘s 62 The State Journal, in an AP wire story, reported on September 23 that the campaign finance bill was "too weak," with "infrequent policing and watered down penalties."1 With examples of how easy it would be to circumvent the new law, the article compared the enacted bill to parts of the bill as originally drafted. The enacted bill did emerge as much weaker, although expenditure limits were included in the enacted version and were not in the ori- ginal draft. Several governmental officials lamented the fact that an "ethics commission" was not approved, and that stricter enforcement procedures were not included in the act.2 Clearly there appeared a need for stronger reforms for the state of Michigan! In a UPI story the last part of September, it was announced that Governor Milliken "has thrown his support behind a planned initiative petition drive to put a compre- 3 hensive campaign reform proposal on the 1976 ballot." Michigan Common Cause announced plans to launch a petition lPete Yost, "Campaign Finance Bill Too Weak," Lansing State Journal, September 23, 1974, p. B-4. 2Ibid. 3"Campaign Reform Drive Endorsed by Milliken," Lansing State Journal, September 24, 1974, p. B-12. 63 drive in January for a ballot prOposal that would cover campaign financing, regulation of lobbyists and conflict of interest by state officeholders. It was also expected to include a provision for the creation of an independent political ethics commission. Milliken said he would work closely with Common Cause and other interested parties "to take the reform issue to the people."1 In late September the Birmingham Observer & Eccen- tric did a feature story on Susan Rennels, Farmington, the new chairperson of Common Cause in Michigan. (Ms. Rennels succeeded Al Swerdlow of Oak Park.) Ms. Rennels stated that Common Cause had worked for 18 months on four polit- ical reform bills, and "not one of these bills has gotten signed by the governor." The issues were lobbying dis- closure and registration, open meetings, campaign finance reform, and conflict of interest of elected officials. "We are not going to settle for a sham law or a weak law," she emphasized.2 lIbid. 2"Common Cause Seeks Reform," Birmingham 92server & Eccentric, September 1974, p. lS-A. ‘ I A.\~p. \ in»... F;o,, 'l~v‘ .P‘. 'n.. _ __. H" I 1 In I. (I’ V 64 Common Cause, according to Ms. Rennels, proposed to "hold the powerful accountable." Explaining the lobbying disclosure reform sought by Common Cause, she said that Michigan, "a state we thought of as progressive until the reform crunch came," had a lobby bill that "is 40 years old that has never been enforced." She said "We're one of eight states in the country that hasn't passed any reforms in these areas since 1970, when the big push for reform started."1 The Legislature had more than amply demonstrated its unwillingness to enact stronger, more comprehensive reform measures at this time. The Gauntlet was indeed passed to the voters themselves, to rally around a citizens' lobby, such as Common Cause, to lead the way toward a 1976 ballot proposal, or to quietly turn out the incumbents who were not willing to deal effectively with reform measures. Common Cause, with the support of the Governor as well as editorial backing by leading newspapers, appeared ready to take up the challenge. A ballot proposal was being drafted. They would be heard from soon. lIbid. '1 A RI:- ' v»..- h ‘ "O "bvu‘ . - it u t ”v.4 uh . . S a . a L .. ,l .. 4 x? “W rs h s s . uh H \ a: A: a: a: HA 5» a: is Q» .3 . — . ~ . . is . \ .V n at a: . n 1. s f n .. a: . s .\ t . . . . . :n . . Ah :u w: .\ s .. .K I. :u A v new i . s .I .- Q o 0 ~ t t . 65 In October 1974, Governor Milliken signed into law SB 1016, P.A. 272 of 1974, the "sham" political reform law. On October 4, Susan Rennels, as State Chairperson of Common Cause, sent a letter to every candidate for state elective office, asking each candidate to review enclosed summaries of the proposed reform chapters which Common Cause had drafted in preliminary form. Comments and sug- gestions were solicited. "We urge you to demonstrate pub- licly your support of this citizen initiative by endorsing the Statement of Principles," the letter stated. Common Cause would also communicate candidate responses to their statewide membership and the media, Ms. Rennels promised. A memo prepared by Michigan House Democratic staff members, dated October 16, 1974, and addreSsed to "Incum— bents and Candidates," commented that the preliminary draft was written in non-statutory language, and it "was inevit- able that countless questions would be raised as to spe- cific intent and meaning in the draft."2 The memo con- tinued: 1Letter from Susan Rennels, Chairperson, Common Cause--Michigan, October 4, 1974. 2Memo from House Democratic Staff, Re: Common Cause Political Reform Legislation, October 16, 1974. ‘)o R H. Al \n n .1 -1 l - 0-H. .1 _. .‘ ." U; u— " ---- M: f.‘ f" l ' u . '.‘r.q" y. E II! n 4 s,” v“ .I u u \- ~V -‘,. '(1 66 It is also inevitable that some points of disagreement would appear among citizens, in- cluding legislators, who may all be equally committed to good government in a good, fully functioning democracy that comprises all ele- ments of the democratic process. The memo stated that "there is no uniform caucus position," which meant that "every candidate and incumbent must decide his or her own position? and decide "what qualifications or lack of qualifications he or she will include in a response "1 to Common Cause. The memo continued, "It goes without saying, how- ever, that Democrats generally are pleased to discuss with any citizen group the important subjects included in the political reform area."2 As far as strategy was concerned, the memo stated: The best chance for the legislature to participate as a deliberative body would be through free negotiations involving Common Cause, business and labor groups, the polit- ical parties, and other citizen groups fol- lowing the November election. In discussing an intiative petition, the staff memo noted: lIbid. Ibid. Ibid. - l .1 . . a: TI. . . I: h . . .. :.. a a .: v .. L. . .l in d 4 c \ 67 if the initiative petition is submitted to the legislature, it will not be subject to amendment and the legislature could only rubber stamp or not rubber stamp a set of hundreds of decisions made by non-elected persons.l If an initiative petition were placed on the ballot, and if it were approved by the majority of the voters, then that ballot prOposal could only be amended by a three-fourths vote in each House of the Legislature. If the Legislature initiated and enacted a proposal, however, it could be amended by a simple majority of the membership in each House. In a second memo dated October 16, 1974, from House Democratic staff, a general statement was made that: "In general, enactment of complex legislation through the peti- tion route is inadvisable, and does not serve the best in- terests of the people of the state." A further explanation of this statement continued: The petition route does not lend itself to dealing adequately with such complex and ambi- guous matters. Each item needs to be examined in detail. All of the legitimate interests affected must be considered and balanced, one against the other. All voices must be heard from. The working out of safeguards for all citizens must be insured. All of this can be lIbid. n ARIA “Val: k4 68 done best through the normal legislative pro- cess.1 The memo also stated: By contrast, the petition route is rela- tively inflexible. Once the content of a petition has been approved, voters have only a yes or no vote on the whole matter. Hear- ings may be held, but they cannot change the content--they can only inform about it. If flaws show up during these hearings, no changes may be made. "The end result," the memo continued: as we have seen in the past with other com- plicated ballot issues, is that most voters, being inadequately informed, vote on the basis of feeling for basic concerns which may or may not be served by the particular item be- fore them. Such voters disregard very real legal and constitutional issues which may be contained in the detail of the proposal. Meanwhile, informed voters--who are almost always in the minority--are forced into a di- lemma: should they vote for a proposal which, in the main, represents their ideals, knowing that it contains flaws which ultimately may work against those ideals, or, should they vote against it, because of those flaws? Neither alternative is desirable. The second memo went on to say: l(Second) Memo from House Democratic Staff, Re: Common Cause Political Reform Legislation, October 16, 1974. 2Ibid. 3Ibid. .Eillw‘ r“ «\s 69 In the case of a proposal such as this, whose basic principles are supported by all of our candidates, either approval or rejec- tion by the electorate may be undesirable. In the case of approval, the people of Mich- igan may be stuck with a flawed and unwork- able piece of legislation which can only be amended by a long and unwieldy process. In the case of rejection, the basic principles which we would all like to see be enacted, those of political reform, may be lost for a number of years.1 Thus, it would seem that, in mid-October 1974, House Democratic leadership was taking a long, hard look at political reform. One piece of legislation, which was not *wholly satisfactory to anyone, and which was soundly crit— icized by many, had been signed into law only two weeks befbre. Already a citizens lobbying group was rallying statewide support for more stringent measures. And the Inause majority party did not appear pleased at the prospect or. It should be noted that representatives from the stnaffs of Speaker Crim, Majority Leader Fitzgerald, and Thailse Republican Leader Cawthorne were always in attendance at; Quadrant staff meetings and sessions; Senate Republican Leader Davis had not shown such concern, and this was re- flxected by the non-attendance of his staffperson at many Ofthese sessions. Crim, Fitzgerald and Cawthorne solidly baCked the bipartisan bill all through committee action and floor debate--up to the point where Davis broke the agree- ment, during Senate floor action. A further note: when the important, compromised bills were introduced, Common Cause had, in tact, the lobbying, ethics commission, and conflict of interest provisions, along with campaign reporting statements and public funding . Democrats had union dues (although with some restrictions, which would be difficult to live with); v up 104 jRepublicans had a reporting floor which they had demanded hue lowered from $50.00 to $15.00, plus they had Political Ekiucation Funds for corporations. All parties understood -t11e "musts": that the 1974 political reform act would Ineaver take effect; union dues would be allowed; the re- p>c>rting floor would be $15.00; and the Common Cause demands ‘tliat the rest of the bill remain "in tact." Democrats and srrpport groups understood that they had to buy the whole pmackage, or they would stand to lose the Common Cause pniblic support and the petition drive could be launched. Ikapublicans were to understand that also, although it will hma seen that Senator Davis broke the agreement, and even iissued a press release Opposing the public funding of. f? interest in the nation." He added that the legislation 'Hirudicates responsiveness on the part Of Michigan govern- nuerit" and a "recognition of the need for accountability on 'thue part of public officials and candidates."2 It sounded, indeed, as though realistic, comprehen- Sisve political reform was almost a reality-~56 votes away ill one chamber; 20 votes in another. But could a Senate, tlubugh it had a 24-14 Democratic majority, and which could m3t stay together on other significant legislation, stick tlegether on this one? And could a House, with a 66-44 E’emocratic edge, garner enough bipartisan support to put the bill into effect in time for the 1976 elections? On May 19, the day the bills were introduced, Quadrant leaders issued a joint preSs release (through their Quadrant staff executive assistants) reiterating \ lIbid’.‘ 2Ibid’. 107 'their bipartisan sponsorship and commitment "to work for fists [the bill's] passage before the Legislature recesses for the summer. "1 The 71-page bill is the product of 4—1/2 months of discussions between the majority and minority leadership of both houses of the Michigan Legislature, representatives of Common Cause, and other interested parties.2 The five-page press release summarized the bill, aJiéllisted names of Quadrant staff members, for further irifOrmation. Also on May 19, spokespersons for Common Cause arunounced their full support for the political reform liegislation scheduled to be introduced that evening into the House and Senate.3 Susan Rennels, chairperson, stated, "We are de- lighted with this historic reform package authored by Demo- cratic and Republican leaders to banish big money and Secrecy from Michigan politics."4 Ms. Rennels also stated, \ . Press Release issued by Bobby D. Crim, William Fltderald, Dennis O. Cawthorne, Robert Davis, May 19, 1975. 2Ibid. Press Release issued by Common Cause-~Michigan, May 19, 1975. 41bid.' 108 "This is the most far-reaching political reform measure saver placed before a Legislature in the United States, and vne intend to work actively for its quick passage."1 Common Cause also announced the postponement of its Ipeatition drive to place a similar proposal before the voters 111 the 1976 general election. Ms. Rennels explained the «gisoup wanted "to give the Legislature every opportunity to enact these reforms themselves."2 The press release also contained the following com- ment from Susan Rennels: The Legislature's bill contains nearly all Of the policy objectives outlined in the Common Cause reform proposal. In addition, the Re- publican and Democratic leaders of both the House and Senate have pledged to work for final enactment of the legislation free from weaken- ing amendments before the Legislature recesses this summer.3 This bill, as introduced, did not contain a provi- sion which prohibited use Of union dues in political cam- paigns. Such a restriction had been a part of the original COmmon Cause proposal. This point was never fully dis- CuSsed or analyzed in media coverage Of the political re- f°rm issue. \ llbid. 21bid. 3Ibid. 109 A month after the introduction of these bills CHE 5250, SB 880), the Republican State Central Committee itssued a June 16 press release Opposing/rejecting the p>uflflic funding chapter in the political reform package.1 On May 20, the day after the bills were introduced, 'tlie Michigan Democratic Party's Executive Board gave their eeridorsement to the political reform package. In a news reelease, the Executive Board cited the "wide range of cam- pmaign and electoral reforms, many Of which were among pfilanks of the 1974 Michigan Democratic Party Platform," eund commended Speaker Crim and Majority Leader Fitzgerald 'Vfor their imaginative and decisive leadership in reaching 51 bipartisan agreement on the final package."2 Democratic State Party Chair Morley Winograd com- mented, "The people Of Michigan, and the nation, have been diSillusioned lately by the political process," and "the legislature's swift and decisive passage of this package will indicate to Michigan's voters that their elected m Press Release issued by Republican State Central Committee, June 16, 1975. Press Release issued by Michigan Democratic Party, May 20, 1975. 110 :representatives are serious about accomplishing the urgent ‘task Of political reform."1 The long-awaited introduction of the political re- fiarm bill was greeted by the press with a barrage of cover- eagge and publicity. Newspapers throughout the state com- Insanted editorially on the importance of the "comprehensive," "]_andmark" and "most promising piece of legislation." The Detroit Free Press reversed its stand on the 15974 legislative question of reporting floors for individual cxantributions. HB 5250 proposed a $15.00 requirement. The flee Press asked, "Is that unreasonably low?" In 1974 the Efliper had argued for the lower floor, and against the Demo— ort annually upon the performance of the press. Those recommendations, made in the mid-40's, are ceIli‘tainly ambitious. It would seem imperative to keep in mlnd that the Commission itself also recognized that the ideal demands made on the press can probably never be come ple‘tely met. The number of politically relevant events transpir- ing . . , . . . in any given day is awesome. In the publication Public 0 I %cials and the Press, the author discussed the fact that 218 few people or reporters have either the time or interest to Inonitor all of the "politically relevant" events and ac- ‘tivities. To print a newspaper containing even a moderate punrtion of these events would require much more space than 153 available in even the largest newspapers. The press Inaikes significant choices when it decides what will be IIEBWS. News choices determine the character of political :iriformation available to the public at large. According to Dunn, "The reporter envisions himself 843 serving a number of overarching purposes as he performs hi 8 daily work: 1) neutral information transmitter, 2) translator and interpreter of government to the people, 3) representative of the public, and 4) participant in policy making.2 According to a reporter quoted in the text, "It is ‘t11£3 reporter's responsibility to make Clear what the gov- el‘l'll'nent is doing and why it is important."3 It was also \ ( 1Delmer D. Dunn, Public Officials and the Press ReFading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. , 1969) , ‘ 123. 21bid., p. 7 31bid., p. 8. 219 Stated that, "Correspondents consider it one of their chief responsibilities to be the public's watchdog. This guides them in their search for news. It is a source of great pleasure when they are able to expose corruption." Another point the author makes is that reporters believe they must do more than merely report official statements; they must also attempt to determine their val- idity. "Furthermore, time pressures on the reporter are Severe. It is often easier merely to report what was said Without checking its validity." The question may be asked: Did the press fulfill its responsibilities to the peOple of the State of Michigan, 131’ in forming them of the content and progress, and future ramifications, of the political reform act? This writer would have to give the Michigan press a solid vote of con- fidence for keeping the people informed. Straight news Stories, features, interviews, and editorials very ade- c“lately informed the public about the content of the com- plicated, 71-page bill. And the press adequately informed the Public of the bill's progress through the Legislature. \ 1_ 1Ibid., p. 9. 2_1_13_i_d_. , p. 11. 220 But, the press did not adequately explain "future ramifi- However, according to Delmer Dunn, public offi- cations . " "much of the information which cials control access to political reporters need for their stories-~particularly if these stories are to go beyond surface events." The ! ability of reporters to adequately present an in-depth story "often hinges on their capacity to pry information from decision makers . " The press (Pat McCarthy with the Lansing State ‘ Journal; Pete Yost, with Associated Press) alluded to sev- eral major items, such as the rules being changed in the POlitical game. But part of their not being able to explain the significance of those rule changes, at least to the Satisfaction of this writer, may lie in the fact that the Political reporter must rely on the public official for much of his information. And many of the "reliable sources" weren't quite ready to talk about those rule changes, and significance of those changes, as they were being ef- t11€3 ise<3‘tuated. \ lIbid., p. 17. 221 The point of "future ramifications" becomes moot, toecause the Michigan Supreme Court declared the Act uncon- Who is to say the reporters didn't second 5 titutional . Re- guess the Court, and realize the "future" was bleak? porters knew the question of constitutionality was pending. The rules of the game would have been vastly changed, had For one thing, public financing 1:118 Act become effective. c315 the gubernatorial contest was almost drastic in the effect it would have had on that statewide campaign. "Big Money" would have been out of the race. Where was a fea— ture story on the "big money" in the last gubernatorial campaign, and speculation about how the next race would be effected by the change? How would this change affect the .Republicans? How would it affect the Democrats? These ques tions may have been asked, but they were never answered in the news columns and other extensive coverage surrounding thi 8 legislation . In the end, as the Supreme Court announced its decision on March 29, 1976, it didn't seem to matter that tlue reporters might have done a better job in explaining and outlining how the rules would have been changed. After the reporters will have other_chances to redeem them- all, Selves. 222 A discussion of press responsibility would not be 1complete without some comment from the politicians who have 'their own ideas about the responsibilities of the press, of <3ourse. An interesting discussion of those views appeared 1 in a Lansing State Journal article on February 29, 1976. Speaker of the House Bobby D. Crim was a guest speaker before the Central Michigan Chapter of Sigma Delta Chi. The article began: A In this post-Watergate era, many people look upon politicians as occupying a rung on the ladder of respectability just slightly higher than burglers, con men and petty thieves.2 But the majority of politicians are honest and dedicated, the article continued. Speaker Crim told the Sigma Delta Chi members: I do not suggest reporters should not be critical. Eliminating the watchdog function of the news media would be courting disaster. But overreacting to a legislative abuse can be as dangerous as the abuse itself. Crim charged that reporters often do not have the desire or the time to put together as complete a story as possible--a lHugh Leach, "Capitol Press Corps Takes Licks," Lansing State Journal, February 29, 1976, p. B—7. 21bid. 31bid. 223 fact which cannot be disputed. But sometimes, Crim said, "reporters are afraid to ask the 'one question too many' that might ruin a juicy story by bringing out all the 1 facts." Crim stressed: "You make our job much harder by printing inaccuracies, stories that are not complete or articles that omit some details." He continued, "I would {F urge you to get the full story. If you do, we would both be better off."2 Crim charged the news media with perpetuating the idea "that big business controls the Republican party and big labor controls the Democrats."3 "News reporters must take responsibility for caus- ing a number of honest politicians not to seek re-election and influencing some good potential candidates to stay out of politics," Crim said.4 Reporter Hugh Leach noted that there was "an almost total lack of questions from the usually inquisitive press lIbid. 21bid. 31bid. 4Ibid. 224 corps" following the talk. Why the unexpected silence? One veteran newspaper correspondent said he thought it was "because many of the comments" made by Crim and the second speaker, State Senator Joseph Mack (D-Iron Mountain), "had struck too close to home."1 Ibid. CHAPTER X CONCLUSION One of the major differences in the 1974 "campaign" for reform and the 1975 "contest" was the press coverage and general "enthusiasm" demonstrated by the press for the 1975 "single package." Many of the young, liberal Democrats who had been so strong for comprehensive reform in 1974 expressed the feelings that they were being thwarted each step of the way by the "beating" they were being given in the press--no- tably the Detroit Free Press. The Free Press blasted the Democrats, editorially, frequently. But in 1975 the situation was reversed. The Demo- crats were praised, the "reformers" were "stroked," and Common Cause was patted on the back at every opportunity. The Free Press actually changed its mind, editorially, on several important points in the political reform package. Perhaps it was that 1975's situation was so unique: a citizens' lobby which had proven successful in other states, 225 226 notably California, was gaining wide respect and "clout" in Michigan, and had an agressive young leader who ably and capably demonstrated that deeds went along with his words. Also, the 1975 package was comprehensive, far-reaching, and E1. would be a landmark piece of legislation, if passed. Mich- E ‘igan would be the first state in the nation to partially publicly fund a gubernatorial campaign, should the legisla- % 9“ tion be passed. It would, boasted the sponsors, take the big money and "special interests" out of the Governor's race. An appealing thought! In any event, the press was enthusiastic. The‘grgg Press, in particular, was emphatic and timely in its edi- torials. Just when the House, or the Senate, could "use" a little shove or a prod, the Free Press was there--urging them on. Well timed, and well written editorials were quite effective. Lawmakers were reading their morning paper, and were heeding its advice. In the opinion of this writer, the Free Press played a major role in enacting Political Reform in Michigan in 1975. The entire attitude had changed. Instead of criti- cizing the Legislature (with justification, it could be argued) for stalling tactics and "looPholes" in 1974, and 227 instead of blasting the Democrats for the reporting floor requirements, the Free Press in 1975 praised a higher floor for reporting, and outlined its reasons. In a telephone interview, Detroit Free Press Asso- ciate Editor David Cooper commented that the newspaper's editorial reversal, from the 1974 "zero-base floor" posi- tion on contributors, to the 1975 "$50 reporting floor level," was very deliberate. "It was a case of the Edi- torial Board's deciding we had been wrong, and here's‘ why . . . ." Mr. COOper said, "The privacy question weighed heaviest in our minds, when we changed our position." He also discussed the value of encouraging individuals to make modest contributions. And if those individuals felt their contributions were anonymous, they would be more in- clined to make donations to parties or candidates. The Free Press felt it was important for an individual to make a contribution, yet not be subjected to job or political pressures because of that decision or action. "That goes hand in glove with privacy--but it's another facet of it," Cooper commented. When asked about his assessment of the Free Press's influence on the 1975 political reform legislation, COOper 228 said, "We certainly wrote a hell of a lot about it. It was a key priority for us, on what we hoped to see done in the state that year." Mr. Cooper also mentioned that the Free Press had received a national award for that particular press cover- age. The award was based on editorials (one from 1974, the remainder from 1975, and most of which were written by David Cooper). In 1976, the Detroit Free Press received an Honorable Mention from the Scripps-Howard Foundation for the National Walker Stone Awards. David CooPer is proud of that award, and of the role he feels the Free Press played in stressing the importance of strong, com- prehensive political reform legislation in Michigan. In the press, lawmakers were praised for their "deliberate speed" and defended for trying to "rush through" the landmark legislation. The press was making it very worthwhile for the lawmakers to enact a revolutionary re- form measure, to change the rules by which they played their game. Lawmakers were praised for writing the rules themselves, as it seemed the press realized it had not been l . . . . DaVid Cooper, Assoc1ate Editor, DetrOit Free Press, telephone interview, October 19, 1976. 229 easy for Common Cause to persuade them to go the legisla- tive route. As for the future of political reform legislation in Michigan: On May 13, 1976, Representative John Markes introduced HB 6350, a bill to provide for partial funding of gubernatorial campaigns.1 On June 14, Senator Patrick McCollough introduced SB 1570, a bill to regulate campaign financing and reporting.2 The "dead" reforms of March 29, 1976, have time to be resurrected before the 1975-76 Legislative Session is ended. Legislative leaders--the Quadrant, again--consider political reform a "top priority" for fall session, 1976. 1Michigan Journal of the House of Representatives, No. 65, May 13, 1976. 2 . . Michigan Journal of the Senate, No. 76, June 14, 1976. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Public Documents Michigan. Constitution of 1963. Michigan. In the Circuit Court for the County of Ingham. Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Michigan. Michigan Journal of the House of Representatives. 1974 and 1975. Michigan. Michigan Journal of the Senate. 1974 and 1975. Michigan. Michigan Public Act 227, 1975. (Enrolled House Bill 5250). Michigan. Michigan Public Act 272, 1974. (Enrolled Senate Bill 1016). Michigan. The Supreme Court. Advisory Opinion on Consti— tutionality of 1975 PA 227. Docket No. 57850. Argued March 5, 1976. Decided March 29, 1976. Books A Free and Responsible Press, by The Commission on Freedom of the Press. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1947. Bernstein, Carl and Bob Woodward. All the President's Mgn. New York: Warner Paperback Library. 1975. 230 231 Bernstein, Carl and Bob Woodward. The Final Days. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1976. Chafee, Zachariah, Jr. Government and Mass Communications. Vol. II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1947. Dunn, Delmer D. Public Officials and the Press. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. 1969. Hocking, William Ernest. Freedom of the Press: A Framge work of Principle. A Report from the Commission 4 on Freedom of the Press. Chicago: The University ” i of Chicago Press. 1947. 7 p ! Siebert, Fred 5., Theodore Peterson, and Wilbur Schramm. Four Theories of the Press. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press. 1956. Articles and Periodicals "A Model of Reform." Battle Creek Enquirer and News. May 27, 1975, p. A-4. Associated Press wire services. 1975. Bagdikian, Ben H. "First Amendment Revisionism." Columbia + Journalism Review. May/June 1974, pp. 39-46. - Barney, Ralph. "The First Amendment: Strong Enough?" Freedom of Information Center Report No. 007. School of Journalism, University of Missouri. Januaryel967. "Campaign Finance Bill Termed 'Weak.'" East Lansing Towne Courier. May 29, 1974. "Commission Opposes Reform Bill." Battle Creek Enquirer_g News. July 23, 1975, p. A-3. 232 "Common Cause and Secrecy." Grand Rapids Press. Febru- ary 22, 1974, p. lO-A. "Common Cause Delays Drive for Tough Campaign Reform Law." Battle Creek Enquirer and News. April 8, 1975, p0 A-lgo ' Common Cause Report from Michigan. Vol. 1, No. 4, Fall 1974. Common Cause Report from Michigan. Vol. 2, No. 1, Winter 1975. "Common Cause Seeks Reform." Birmingham Observer and Ec- centric. September 1974, p. 15—A. "Damman 'loophole' cited at hearing on bill." Oakland Press. June 19, 1975. Dgtroit Free Press. 1974 and 1975. Detroit News. 1974 and 1975. Duncan, Dale. "Local Officials Voice Objection Over Fi- nance Bill." Hillsdale Dailerews. June 28, 1975, p. l. "Ferency Says Reform Bill Invites Corruption." Battle Creek Enquirer and News. June 3, 1975, p. B-8. Gerdes, Wylie. "Councilmen Support Disclosure But Oppose Bills." Farmington Eccentric and Observer, June 19, 1975. Holstein, William J. "Political Reform Bill May Curtail Candidates' Contribution Monies." Michigan State News. May 20, 1975, p. l. Keegstra, Jim. "Michigan Destined for Political Reform." Michigan State News. March 28, 1975, p. 13. Kulsea, William. "Common Cause Leader Says Coalition for Political Reform." Kalamazoo Gazette, July 29, 1975. 233 Kulsea, William. "Common Cause's Reform Bill Tough." Ann Arbor News. May 24, 1975. Lansing State Journal. 1974 and 1975. Leffingwell, Mary Anne. "State Bill Bitterly Criticized at Hudson Council Meet." Hillsdale Daily News. June 23, 1975, p. 14. Merrill, John C. "Is There a Right to Know?" Freedom of Information Center Report No. 002, School of Jour- nalism, University of Missouri. January 1967. Michigan Report. Gongwer News Service, Inc. 1975. O'Connor, John. "Lobbyist Analyzes Political Reform Bill." Grand Rapids Press. June 1, 1975, p. 7-A. O'Connor, John. "Wary Legislators Join Common Cause in Drafting Reform Bill." Grand Rapids Press. May 18, 1975, p. lO-A. "Political Reform Foes Speak." The Port Huron Times Herald. July 16, 1975, p. 8D. Report from Washington. Common Cause. Vol. 4, No. 2. December 1973-January 1974. 24 pp. Schauerte, Bud. "Yes, There is The Right To Know." Free- dom of Information Center Report No. 003. School of Journalism, University of Missouri. May 1967. “Senate Must Improve Campaign Reform Bill." Michigan State News. May 20, 1974, p. 4. "Sick System Curable." Michigan State News. May 28, 1975, p. 4. "State Election Reform." Grand Rapids Press. May 27, 1975, p0 l4-Ao Tingwall, John. "Common Cause to Seek Tougher Campaign Reform." Michigan State News. October 28, 1974. 234 United Press International wire services. 1975. Untitled editorial. Albion Evening Recorder. May 31, 1975, p. 2. Press Releases/Messages Message to the Michigan Legislature. Governor William G. Milliken. October 25, 1973. Press Release. Bobby D. Crim, William Fitzgerald, Dennis O. Cawthorne, Robert Davis. May 19, 1975. Press Release. Common Cause--Michigan. May 19, 1975. Press Release. Michigan Democratic Party. May 20, 1975. Press Release. Representative John Markes. June 25, 1975. Press Release. Republican State Central Committee. June 16, 1975. Press Release. William G. Milliken, Governor of Michigan. August 27, 1975. Statement. Zolton Ferency to Senate Committee on Munici- palities and Elections. Public Hearing. Lansing, MI. June 10, 1975. Unpublished Material Letter from Bobby D. Crim, William Fitzgerald, Dennis O. Cawthorne, Robert Davis to Susan Rennels, April 2, 1975. Letter from "Common Cause Caucus" to Democratic Senators, July 23, 1975. {I 235 Letter from Morley Winograd, Chairman, Michigan Democratic Party, to Ms. Susan Rennels. Letter from Susan Rennels, Chairperson, Michigan-Common Cause, October 4, 1974. Memo from Representative John Markes, Chairman, House 5 '3 Policy Committee, to committee members, May 27, 1975. Memorandum from House Democratic Staff, Re: Common Cause Political Reform Legislation, October 16, 1974. I!» ~. Memorandum from House Democratic Staff (second memo), Re: Common Cause Political Reform Legislation, Oc- tober 16, 1974. Memorandum to Common Cause Activists, from State Office Staff, "Analysis of the Political Reform Law: What It Does and How It Passed," October 21, 1975, 5 pp. Minutes, Committee on House Policy. May-July 1975. Summary of Political Reform Bill, prepared by Senate Demo- cratic Staff, 20 pp. Unsigned letter titled "The Big GOP Sellout," undated. Other Sgurces Common Cause. Personal interviews with officers, director, members, office staff. December 1975; March 1976. Michigan House of Representatives. Committee on House Policy. Roll Call records. MiChigan Legislature. Personal interviews with Represen- tatives, Senators, Legislative staff members, political consultants, committee clerks. October 1975-June 1976. 236 Personal notes. Legislative committee meetings, floor action, observations. Telephone interview, David Cooper, Associate Editor, Detroit Free Preee, October 19, 1976. Sources Consulted Barron, Jerome A. "Access to the Press--A New First Amend- ment Right." Hervard Law Revieg, LXXX, 1967. Brant, Irving. The Bill of Righge. Indianapolis: Bobbs- Merrill, 1965. Chester, Lewis, et a1. Wetergate, the Full Inside Stegy. New York: Ballentine Books, 1973. Clor, Harry M. The Mass Media and Modern Democraey, Chi- cago: Rand McNally College Publishing Co., 1974. Contemporary Issues in Journaliem. Vol. I: Politics and the Press. Washington, D.C.: Colortone Press, 1970. Emerson, Thomas I. Toward a General Theory of the Fire; Amendmeng, New York: Random House, 1966. Gilliam, Thomas B. "Newsmen's Sources and the Law." Free— dom of Information Center Report No. 259, School of Journalism, University of Missouri at Columbia. March 1971. Hughes, Frank. Prejudice'and the Preee. New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1950. Levy, Leonard W. Freedom of Speech and Press in EarTy American Histqu. New York: Harper and Row, 1963. Merrill, John C. and Ralph D. Barney. Ethics and the Preee: Readings in Mass Media Moraligy, New York: Hast- ings House, 1975. 237 Rather, Dan, and Gary Paul Gates. The Palace Guard. New York: Warner Paperback Library, 1975. Reston, James. The Artillery of the Press. New York: Harper and Row, 1966. Rivers, William L. The Adversaries. Politics and the Press. Boston: Beacon Press, 1970. Sigal, Leon V. Reporters and OTficiaTs: The Organization and Politics of Newsmaking. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath & Co., 1973. Sussman, Barry. The Great_Cover-Up: Nixon end the Scandal of Watergate. New York: Signet, 1974. IGAN ”'71): mm 1! EEEEEEE (MI/((1)7111!!!)7111/1777)“ 77 3