Newspaper Page Text
Page 10
— Griffin Daily News Thursday, February 26, 1976
/omrn s 4 w
I B 4
Jk n /
. ■ |F' .-> f I 4 „
IMO9MB&? Jf $ !» * **■ tIH
to itSf <■’' iB.I *■ ■ S
■ r UL*^' *wwl
K/AtIML 1 v>' s 4i ’I fl IJ
v «*
ImßKßihl> * .i
North Side students practice folk dancing
Students at North Side Elementary School will present a
musical program at Tuesday night’s PTA meeting.
Practicing songs (left, above) are (front, 1-r) Sherlene
Baffin, Alicia Eady, (rear 1-r) Earl Adcock and Dexter
Campaign law’s bizarre mutation
By NEA/london Economist News Service
WASHINGTON - (LENS)
— Whatever becomes of the
election campaign reforms
enacted in 1974, it is beyond
reasonable doubt that 1976
will be a financially leaner
and cleaner year in national
politics than 1972 was
The object-lesson of what
happened to Richard Nixon
and his associates, and the
embarrassment and humilia
tion of the people who fed
them money, are too close;
for the present. good behavior
is good politics
The Watergate scandals did,
however, give an extra im
petus to long-standing
demands for improvement
and stricter regulation of
campaign finance, and so an
elaborate new law was passed
in 1974 that would not have
been passed if Mr. Nixon had
not been found out.
How best to put everything
right in this field for the
future is, however, a com
plicated subject, involving
constitutional principles as
well as political interests.
While the early stages of the
1976 presidential campaign
were unfolding under the um
brella of the new law. the
I _ I ALL MAKES BAKE
4 BROIL UNITS
Mill PR'S
GRIFFIN APPLIANCE
I ’38,900 I
I I
I -.??**•''..• I
t 1803 sq. ft. of well-arranged living space in this |g
lovely 4 bedroom, 2 bath home. Carpeted
throughout. Central heat & air. A-l condition. (11l
McKinley Dr.)
Robert Weeks - Joan Montgomery - June Weeks
Res. 228-2966-Res. 228-8059-Res.22B-2966 #
I I
927 S. HUI St. 228-9300 |
law’s critics were moving
from court to court in an ef
fort to get it overturned.
Their effort ended up in the
Supreme Court, which an
nounced on January 30 its
decision to uphold some parts
of the Federal Elections Cam
paign Amendments of 1974
while overturning other parts.
The court, in effect, read
Congress a lesson on the perils
of framing a law for the long
term under the influence of a
passing event. Not the least
unfortunate of the conse
quences was, evidently, to
throw the court itself into a
state of fearful perplexity, as
the multiplicity of its opinions
shows.
Only three of the eight
justices who took part
(Justice John Paul Stevens
having stayed out of it as a
newcomer) subscribed to the
entire opinion, the other five
concurring in part and dissen
ting in part. While the court
will naturally recoil from
accepting suits on this subject
for a while to come, not much
doubt exists that it will be
obliged sooner or later to
come back to it.
What it boils down to is that
Congress is within its rights in
requiring candidates to dis
close the source and amounts
of the campaign contributions
they collect. It can limit how
much a contributor may give
to a candidate's campaign for
the presidency or for a seat in
Congress, and how much he
can give to all candidates in
Allen. Angela Slaton and Thomas Blalock at right perfers
their folk dancing. The meeting gets under way at 7:30
p.m.
any one year. It can provide
public funds for presidential
campaigns, as it has done, and
by implication could provide
public money for con
gressional campaigns if it
chose. The court even upholds
the right of Congress to dis
criminate between the major
parties and minor, indepen
dent, or splinter parties in the
way it allocates public cam
paign money.
What Congress cannot do.
The court says that... a man can be
stopped from giving as much as he chooses to
a candidate, but he can spend as much as he
chooses on the same cause. The candidate
may not collect all he wants, but he can spend
all he wants if he can get it, and if he
happens to be rich, Congress can not stop him
from spending his own money.
says the court, is to tell a can
didate how much he may
spend on his campaign, or tell
private persons or
associations how much they
may spend on promoting their
beliefs — even if promoting
their beliefs has the effect of
supporting a candidate for
some elective office.
This is where the mind
begins to boggle and the
shadowy outlines of many
future lawsuits begin to come
distantly into view. As Chief
Justice Warren Burger
observed in one of the more
acid of the partially dissenting
opinions, “for me con
tributions and expenditures
are two sides of the same first
amendment coin.” The court
says that, if Congress so
wishes, a man can be stopped
from giving as much as he
chooses to a candidate, but he
can spend as much as he
chooses in the same cause.
The candidate may not collect
as he wants, but he can spend
all he wants if he can get it,
and if he happens to be rich.
Congress cannot stop him
spending his own money.
How is such a result arrived
at? In away it is simple.
Congress, says the first
amendment to the Constitu
tion. "shall make no
law .. . abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the peo
ple peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the govern
ment for a redress of
grievances.”
The right to express
opinions carries with it the
right to spend money in mak
ing them known. If a publisher
may not be denied the right to
use newsprint, ink and costly
presses to disseminate his
views, can Nelson Rockefeller
be stopped from buying a page
in the New York Times or 10
minutes on channel four to
petition President Ford for a
dHBIk I k
... \
1 \
z WffireW *
■A» -*&&&
<CTj /£• ■ pF
—•* /a^MK*SaSES^BiHß3h' , ’'¥ -
B ■ 'TSMh.B v;;j
«* *''V""%JH| ■
O ■ W' I
I ■ *W 1
r H JR* W
redress of his grievances?
Indeed not, said the court,
restating the matter in
lapidary form; “The first
amendment denies govern
ment the power to determine
that spending to promote
one's political views is
wasteful, excessive, or un
wise.”
There is a difference
between spending and con
tributing, and the court arriv
ed at the conclusion that for
Congress to make a law
limiting political con
tributions was perfectly all
right. Free expression had to
give way to the overriding
necessity for representative
government to avoid either
corruption — the exchange of
a campaign contribution for a
quid pro quo — or the
appearance of corruption in
the government.
This leaves a substantial
part of the 1974 law in force.
The compulsory disclosure of
contributions and of campaign
spending is another substan
tial part that survives. As far
as the presidential campaign
is concerned, a candidate may
have the right to spend what
he likes, but not if he accepts
the grant of matching federal
funds for his campaign.
(c > The Economist of London
Collection
agency didn’t
pay bill
LOS ANGELES (UPI) - A
collection agency was taken to
court for nonpayment of a bill—
and was ordered to pay up.
Coffee Inn of the Valley
brought an action in small
claims court against Capitol
Credit Corp., charging the
collection agency had failed to
pay a $63 bill for for coffee
provided last September and
October. Several telephone calls
to the firm’s home office in
Washington elicited promises of
payment, but no money, com
plained the owner of the coffee
service, John Conrad.
The judge Wednesday or
dered the collection agency to
fork over the $63 plus $10.50 in
court costs.
AL, / y
f ° r
i/ wB s' «\
1 1 /
x itTfrßr yfaSgi.
/I r I x wTW:
/ i I \ till la v \
, A
//I/ / I !
Suitable Stripes Smooth Sailing
Indispensable jacket dress for changes in weather
cotorful checks and jet back on> white A-tae skirt. or mood. Dress has two-piece effect with white top
F I “I ““ stri P ed Jacket repeats stripes with wZ
also checked. Lighthearted and fun to wear.
r™ S ** C ” te ’ : Strip.
Green-white, Navy-white, Red-white. White _ 100 p o i yester Si2es . g-20, Colors:
$ r £OO Blue-white, Red-white.
30 $52 00
"First In Fashions"
How can you judge
pre-school quality?
By DR. WILLARD
ABRAHAM
Copley News Service
Q. I recently read or heard
someplace that private (for
profit) preschools are not as
good as public ones like Head
Start.
My little boy goes to a
marvelous nursery school
that is privately owned. It is
run by highly professional
people who respect the indi
vidual differences among the
children and provide all kinds
of opportunities for learning
and creative activities.
They do make a profit, but
isn't that what it’s all about in
this world of ours? They cer
tainly deserve it
A. The quality of preschools
is not directly related to their
profit-making potential.
Some extremely poor non
profit ones are actually a
disaster so far as young chil
dren are concerned, and
many excellent ones (like the
one your son attends) happen
to make a profit.
Money isn’t the key point.
Much more important is what
they do for and to youngsters,
what kind of people operate
them, and what their pro
gram, equipment and facili
ties are like.
If you want a check list that
will help you select a sound
preschool, nursery school or
day care center, please send
a stamped addressed en
velope. I'll be happy to send it
to you at no cost.
Q. My stepdaughters visit
with my husband and me on
some weekends. Their real
mother and stepfather take
them to movies like “Jaws”
and “The Happy Hooker.”
When I told them that I didn’t
approve of their seeing adult
movies, they mentioned that
they often hide under the
seats during some parts.
We take them to movies,
too, but they are family ones.
Even so, they start crying
with such a wail that they at
tract everyone’s attention,
even during happy, loving
scenes.
These girls are 6 and 8
years old. Their natural
mother is under psychiatric
care, child abuse reports
have been filed, and their
home life is very poor. We’ve
applied for custody, but
haven’t been successful.
Is there anything more we
can do?
A. You can provide the in
formation you have to the
agency who has the child
abuse reports and try to
spend as much time with
these children as possible.
You could also scratch
movies from your schedule
when they come over.
If either you or your hus
band has a speaking relation
ship with their mother or
stepfather, you might tell
them what happens when you
take them to the movies. Try
sticking to facts because this
can add up to an emotionally
charged situation.
Letters may be sent to Our
Children, Copley News Serv
ice, in care of this newspaper.
Questions of general Interest
will be answered in the col
umn as space permits.
Learning disabilities,
giftedness, slow learning.
Send stamped return en
velope to Dr. Abraham, P.O.
Box 572, Scottsdale, Arizona
85252 for complete list