Democrats upset by Nixon’s campaign spending veto

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32430, 17 October 1970, Page 15

Democrats upset by Nixon’s campaign spending veto

(N.Z.P. A.-Reuter—Copyright) WASHINGTON, Oct. 13. President Nixon’s veto of a bill to limit spending on political campaign broadcasts today threatened to become a new issue for the debt-ridden Democrats in next month’s Congressional elections. Although White House aides said that Mr Nixon's decision was non-partisan, Democrats claimed that the wealthier Republican candidates would benefit most. They recalled the 1968 Presidential elections in which the Republicans were reported to have spent on broadcast advertising at least twice as much for Mr Nixon as the ssm the Democrats expended on Mr Hubert Humphrey. The Democrats still owe; more than s9m.

Under the vetoed bill, Presidential and Vice-Presiden-tial candidates from each party would have been restricted to an estimated ssm for campaign broadcasts in the 1972 election. In a statement to Congress yesterday, Mr Nixon described the measure as discriminatory, unfair, endangering freedom of discussion and, in many instances, impossible to enforce. He said that it failed to control over-all political campaign expenditures and would nave allowed wealthy candidates simply to transfer their funds to advertising in other media. “The problem is spending,” he said. “This bill plugs only one hole in the sieve.” But Senator Daniel Inouye, chairman of the Senate Democratic campaign committee, accused Mr Nixon of playing party politics . and there was an immediate move to muster votes to override I the veto, the fifth by Mr

Nixon in his 20-month administration.

Needing a two-thirds majority and with many Congressmen away campaigning, it was unlikely that a vote could be taken before the Senate goes into recess tomorrow.

Television is being used more and more extensively in political campaigns and there have been widespread accusations that it virtually

allows wealthy candidates to buy elections. Although the bill would have had little impact on this year’s elections, its effect in 1972 might have been important. White House aides, turning aside allegations that Mr Nixon acted to boost his prospects in 1972, said that the financial positions of the two parties might change by then.