STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ANDERSON, JR., GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

Governor ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would thank you and the members of your committee for extending the invitation and giving me the opportunity to appear. My remarks will be very brief, and only in response to the request by telegram to present my viewpoint on the proposal of amending the Communications Act.

Senator MONRONEY. Would you pause a second? We are honored to have Kansas' other Senator, the senior Senator, Senator Frank Carlson here in the audience. Would you care to come up, Senator Carlson? We are happy to have you here during the Governor's presentation.

Senator CARLSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the opportunity of being in here with our distinguished Governor, Governor Anderson, and I have with me a young man who is here attending a Hi-Y Conference, Robert Sears of Kansas City. Thank you very much. I shall listen to the testimony with interest.

Senator MONRONEY. We are glad to have you and your Governor of the State of Kansas here.

Governor ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I have only a personal viewpoint on the proposal of amending the Communications Act and would say it is based somewhat upon experience, and upon discussion, you might say, with some of the people who are involved in the very real or concrete problems in the radio and television field.

I am inclined to the view that amendment of some kind is perhaps necessary to aid the television and radio communications networks during election years if there is to be any extension of public interest, free time at all. With more than the two major parties involved in campaigns, and we have them in the State of Kansas, those that represent a small portion only of the total vote, and other States I am sure have more than a few additional parties, other than the two major parties, the extension of equal time to any candidate that would demand it would make the system, as it has been carried on in the past, almost unworkable. It seems to me, however, that amendment that would suspend entirely a rule of equal opportunity, or equal time for the major party candidates might be subject to abuse which would endanger, really, a fair presentation of the issues to the public. And the guarantees of freedom of the press, which I think are extended to the radio and television are a guarantee under the Constitution, and I think with those guarantees flow a responsibility which if not kept would be dangerous to our democratic system.

Consequently, I wouldn't favor a complete suspension of the rule of equal time, but would favor relaxing, to the point where equal opportunity would be guaranteed the candidates of the major parties, and then allow some protection to the communication media, to make it a practical or workable situation in carrying out the rule. That in substance is my thought.

Senator MONRONEY. We have several bills, as you know, before us. We have Senator Pastore's bill, which would suspend again for a brief period, during the presidential campaign, 1964, the equal time as it applies to the candidates for President and Vice President. It is merely repeating that which was done in 1960. It does not apply to

primaries, it doesn't apply to equal time for State or municipal or county offices. The Hartke bill, which we have before us, applies clear across the board, doesn't merely suspend the equal time or equal opportunity provision, it repeals it. Thus you go from constable to President, with a range of time that can be given freely to one candidate and not to another, trusting only in the good will and fairness of the station owner. Of course this is a fine thing, but we all think newspapers are fair, but they don't always give the candidates of both parties an equal display in their newspaper, which is their privilege. In television, electronic journalism, as they sometimes call television and radio, the media of communications, the airways, are naturally in the public domain.

So after the station is on the air, why, the communications really reach the listener and viewer in the public domain, rather than by private means. So it would seem to me we do have to be somewhat more careful in this field, and I raise a question on the expansion of the primaries, certainly because there is no way of gaging whỏ, of many candidates-and I suppose you have in Kansas, a great many candidates running for the office of Governor

Governor ANDERSON. Frequently too many.

take it?

Senator MONRONEY. What would be your idea of expansion beyond the President and Vice President. How far would you Governor ANDERSON. Well, I really think

You

Senator MONRONEY. Assuming we are going to suspend now. testified you thought that was better than repeal. It is lots easier to suspend again, if the program works out well, rather than to have repealed it and then have to reenact the law, or to prove a case against a group or series of television and radio stations.

Governor ANDERSON. It has less permanancy to it, and it gives the benefit of a trial and error procedure. I would see no objection to suspending it to operate as to congressional candidates and to Governors. Perhaps even to elected State officials, where you have constitutional officials in the State.

But the fact of the situation is that the people, I think, and their interest in it is reflected through what the television and radio communications managers are going to give attention to anyway, and these are centered more upon the candidate for Congress, and for the Senate, and for the Governor, than for other elected State officials or the local offices.

There is a good deal of the managers of the communications system presenting that which is going to appeal to the interest of the public any way. I think this is going to have to be like water seeking its own level.

Senator MONRONEY. You would not be in favor of extending it, would you, to primaries?

Governor ANDERSON. I think it should be extended to the primaries. Senator MONRONEY. How would you distinguish between those to whom you would give time? It is easy on the two political parties, because you are dealing with two major parties, both with very strong adherents, and large numbers within the State. But when you get into the field of primaries you oftentimes have as high as 16 or 18 candidates running, and it is difficult to tell which ones would be the important candidates and which ones could be ignored, therefore

setting a very high responsibility upon television or radio as to whom they would give the time.

Governor ANDERSON. Well, I agree with you; but as a practical matter, in the primaries the way the time is given in our State at least is by a panel-type discussion program in which they bring all of the candidates in, seat them around a table, and either a community interest group, such as the League of Women Voters, or other organizations carry on a panel-type program, and the equal time proposition is then maintained.

Senator MONRONEY. But you would be repealing or suspending that, if we pass these bills, and extend them down to the State level, however. There would be no requirement whatever in the law during election time for equal time.

Governor ANDERSON. I perhaps didn't make myself clear. I think the equal time provision should be maintained as to the candidates for the major parties.

Senator MONRONEY. Then on the premises you lose that gage, you see, because each candidate is running for his party's nomination. Therefore someone, if you are going to get away from the equal time provisions for all, then someone has to make a choice of who is going to get it this time.

And you suggest, and I think properly so, and many of the stations in my State also have a panel show, and assemble all of the candidates for that office. It is a little difficult when you have 13 or 14 running and try to put it in a half-hour show.

I just wonder if it is necessary to, because of the difficulty of-
Governor ANDERSON. Getting into the primary at all?
Senator MONRONEY. Yes.

Governor ANDERSON. That's right.

Senator MONRONEY. Some people feel it would be impossible to be completely fair, because you have no hallmarks of importance, as you do in the two major parties. Once they have chosen their nominee they have great backing in the State, and thus you could separate those from the independents or those running from minor political parties.

Do you think that would be preferable?

I mean the primary is something

Governor ANDERSON. It would be harder to administer. Of course the radio and television people I talked with, they would like the rule, or the law, repealed in this respect, and to allow them to gage their own degree of fairness, which they claim they would do. I don't agree with them entirely.

Senator MONRONEY. It is a little hard to assume that anybody can be completely fair with that much political power; particularly in a primary.

Governor ANDERSON. I think you are right. I think the political power involved here perhaps is one of the greatest in our system of election and representation.

Senator MONRONEY. In your State I presume the Republican nomination is a highly sought-after prize, and is as important a race as the general election; sometimes more.

Governor ANDERSON. Let me say it used to be more so when Senator Carlson was Governor than it is now.

Senator MONRONEY. We suspended, as you well know, the equal-time provision for newscasts; that no longer applies; and the interview type of show no longer is bound by section 315. So the only provision now left is the equal opportunity provision which last year was suspended for presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Originally the objection of television and radio industry to the mandatory provisions of S. 3171-later they agreed to the suspension of equal time so we could have the great debates.

Now, if this were completely repealed, as called for in Senator Hartke's bill, I am very fearful we would have a hard time working under the fairness clause without swamping the Federal Communications Commission with enforcement problems, or the networks, or station owners.

It is hard to judge or make a case on what is or is not fair.
Governor ANDERSON. That's right. I would agree.

Senator MONRONEY. We do appreciate your statement very much.
Senator Carlson?

Senator CARLSON. Mr. Chairman, I just wish to state this: I appreciate very much you hearing the testimony of our Governor, Mr. Anderson, and I want the Governor to know that this matter is in good hands under the chairmanship of the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma. I have had the honor of serving with him on some committees, and I know how thorough he is, how fair he is; and I have every reason to believe whatever the committee reports, it will be in the best interests of all those concerned.

Senator MONRONEY. Thank you very much.

It has been a great pleasure to serve with the distinguished Senator, both in the House and in the Senate.

The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, at which time we will hear Dr. Frank Stanton, president, Columbia Broadcasting System, Mr. Vincent Wasilewski, executive vice president, National Association of Broadcasters, and Mr. John Bailey, chairman, Democratic National Committee.

Thank you again, Governor, for coming, and we appreciate it very much.

(Whereupon, at 2:45, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., June 28, 1963.)