Oregon daily emerald., August 30, 1972, Page 4, Image 4

Commentary
On the right . . . William F. Buckley
The Rabbi’s Forlorn Button
In New York City, Rabbi Nathan Schorr, chairman
of the American Jewish Association, who has a sharp
eye for piquancy, thought recently to distribute a button.
A political, campaign button—no question about that. He
took the idea to friends who sympathized with his pur
poses, and undertook to get the button produced, and to
advertise its availability.
In due course the advertisement arrived at what
they are pleased to call the Acceptability Department of
the New York Times. After a little confusion, it was
turned down Why? the ad agency asked For legal
reasons, said the Times representative. What legal
reasons? Well, he said, under the Federal Campaign
Election Act of 1971, it is required that an advertisement
which has the purpose of influencing the election of
persons to federal office, be submitted with the
authorization of the candidate whose name is used in the
advertisement and to whose purposes the ad is
presumably put. If a candidate’s name is used without
authority, the law seems to say, it is then required that
his nonauthorization be duly documented, so that the
newspaper can note the fact when it publishes the ad.
Moreover, the sponsor of the ad, if he or it proposes
to spend $1,000 or more in total, is pronounced under the
new law a political committee, and as such must file
reports (a) concerning the source of its funds, and (b) to
the effect that it is not responsible for overspending in
any race covered by the Federal Campaign Election
Act.
AJ1 of this to the rabbi and his little button, who
brought the matter to me. I telephoned to the New York
Times and spoke there with a kindly, browbeaten
executive who has been struggling to come to grips with
the new law. He told me that in his opinion, since the
button in question advocates the election of George
McGovern, it falls therefore under the law.
The button in question reads:
mcgovern is behind Israel 1000 per cent
“You are joking,” I said. The executive, so deeply
immersed in the law that it had evidently slipped his
attention that Senator McGovern had pledged to support
Senator Eagleton “1000 per cent,” smiled over the
telephone, and promised to call back after he had con
sulted his colleagues.
“I am making a historical decision,” he reported an
hour later. “We are henceforward interpreting the law
as excluding the advertisement of political buttons, or
the use of puns.” Accordingly, the rabbi’s McGovern
button will fly its flag in the Times, and is available (at
$1) from the Committee to Button Down Support for
Israel, P.O. Box 574, Murray Hill Station, New York,
New York 10016.
The New York Times is deeply involved in the
complexities of the crazy new law. Two weeks ago, it
was revealed that the Justice Department had filed suit
against the National Committee for Impeachment,
which had inserted a two page Impeach-Nixon ad in the
Times in May. The Justice Department, having received
complaints against the ad, has moved against the
committee charging it with failure to state where a copy
of its financial reports could be obtained and with failure
to indicate that the ad had not been authorized by the
congressmen whose names were listed in it as them
selves favoring the impeachment of Nixon.
The story revealed further that the Justice
Department was thinking of suing the New York Times,
over its failure to get from the impeachment committee
the information necessary to comply with the new law.
James Goodale, senior vice president of The Times “for
law and finance,” announced that his company
disagreed with any interpretation of the law that held
that “mere mention of or incidentally favorable com
ment about a candidate in an advertisement requires the
press to obtain (such a) certificate mentioned. If this
were the case,” he said, a candidate so named “would
have a veto power over publication of advertisements
with which he or she disagreed.”
That at least. What is needed, now, is someone to
test the constitutionality of the law. The Times could,
but, poor thing, she is a little fatigued, and entitled to be.
The New York Times vs. the United States is beginnii^
to sound a little bit too much like the Mets vs. the Col^B
or whatever. Someone else should volunteer to be th?
instrument for the unconstitutionalization of this odd
law.
Letters
Veterans for McGovern
To veterans in College:
The nomination of Sen. George
McGovern for the presidency has been
greeted with enthusiasm by veterans all
over the nation Letters pledging a
willingness to work or financial support for
the campaign have come from people on
active duty in Vietnam, Germany and
bases throughout the world
Twenty five years of preparations for
war have brought to America ten years of
actual war The veteran has become the
forgotten man in this deadly game of
“brinksmanship ” Sen McGovern’s
proposal to reduce defense spending to a
reasonable level and to divert our
resources to the more pressing social and
economic needs of the American people is
of groat importance to the veteran
The legislative record of George
McGovern has reflected a strong stand for
the veterans of all wars. A decorated
combat veteran of World War II, he favors
increases in the G.l. Bill to meet the rising
costs in education and extensive govern
ment action in cooperation with private
industry to curb the high rate of unem
ployment confronting today’s veterans.
Unlike Richard Nixon, Sen. McGovern
does not have a “secret” plan for peace
that has failed at the expense of over 20,000
American lives, countless more Viet
namese and billions of dollars. Unlike
Richard Nixon, Sen McGovern would not
continue to bomb indiscriminately, nor
would he bomb at all The McGovern plan
for peace is public, in keeping with the
honor and integrity of the American
people The Nixon “game plan” which
equates “peace and prosperity” with more
war, massive bombing, inflation and
greater unemployment must cease. The
veteran can play a key role in restoring
peace and purpose to American policy at
home and abroad; the election of George
McGovern as President will bring a new
and better government to the American
people.
Veterans for McGovern organizations
are presently forming on campuses and in
communities across the country. Working
closely with local McGovern for President
offices, many are still understaffed and
lacking funds We encourage and need
your support If you’re short of time and
money-remember, it takes little time to
register and no money to vote If you have
any problems, questions or suggestions,
feel free to write or call—we’re here to
help you out.
G. Dudley Acker, Jr.
National Director, Veterans for McGovern
1 was in 100 per cent agreement with
vour editorial of August 9, 1972, urging us
to boycott non-union lettuce. But don’t you
find it ironical that a paper which con
tinually expounds the virtues of unionism
and urges union support for all workers, is
entirely produced and printed by non
union workers.
May 1 suggest we boycott the Emerald.
Agreement
Wayne D. Merritt
Chairman, SOPEA
International Printing Pressrr^
and Assistant’s Union Local 1
—I
'STftH6e TH# <10U VlffltI) UMZ ro Me tox fiPVfCt, nu±K...