BY BILL MILLER: Associate professor and director of the Public Affairs Reporting Program at Sangamon State University he was a reporter for 25 years and received over 20 Associated Press News Awards and the national Edward R. Murrow Award for investigative reporting.

Alan Dixon Now state treasurer, he aspires to become secretary of state. He predicts we will get by this fiscal year without raising taxes because he expects an upswing in the economy. He would send public aid frauds to jail ALAN J. DIXON entered public life 27 years ago when he was elected police magistrate in his home sown, Belleville, at age 21. Since than he has spent 12 years in the Illinois House, eight years in the Senate, and has been state treasurer the past five years. Last December the Democratic state central committee endorsed him as the regular organization the Democratic nomination for secretary of state in the March primary. The interview took place prior to this endorsement. Dixon is recognized as an able debater and claims that most of the significant legislation passed in the General Assembly during the 20 years he served was authored either by himself or by former Senate Republican leader, W. Russell Arlington of Evanston. Dixon is the 57th treasurer of Illinois and the only state elected official to have served in all three branches of government legislative, executive, and Judicial.

Miller: Treasurer Dixon, can Illinois get by the next two years without a tax increase?

Dixon: We can get by this fiscal year that we are in now, ending June 30. 1976, without a tax increase our projections show that we will finish that year having balanced the budget paid all our bills with a modest surplus balance in the treasury. Every major recognized economist the country says that we are going to enjoy a very decided upswing in the economy in the second half of this fiscal year [January through June]. So, I would say that we'll be able to get by the succeeding fiscal year [July 1, 1976 through June 30 1977] without any tax increase because an improvement in the economy will mean that we'll have two distinct rewards: first. substantial new income from the income tax and sales tax: second, substantial reductions in expenditures for public aid.

Miller: An alternative to a tax increase could be cutting stale spending. Can you pinpoint any areas where you feel the slate is now overspending?

Dixon: I think we could have made very substantial improvements in our budgetary circumstances if the governor, early on. in January and February [1975] had been listening to Alan Dixon. the state treasurer, and George Lindberg. the comptroller, who were advising him and the legislature about the fact that we were going to have a tight fiscal situation. If he would have reordered his priorities then, he could have done a great deal to bring us in an austerity budget that would have obviated a lot of the problems that we have now. There are certainly places in his budget where, in the judgment of most of us, the appropriations are excessive. For instance. 1 think the Bureau of the Budget has to be condemned for the miserable job it did with respect to our budgetary practices this year. even with all the cuts, including the meat-axe six per cent cut across the board by the governor. Yet, its appropriation is up 65 per cent. The Department of Revenue is up substantially. The original budget contemplated 4.450 new jobs. but how many of them will actually be put into the operational program this year, in view of the reductions in the budget, I don't know. But. most of us are pretty confident that at least 700 or 800 new jobs will be created in the Department of Transportation. most of which will have political characterizations. I think you could go through the budget and find a lot of other excesses. I think, though, that the real big chunks for education and public aid are pretty well committed for the year.

Miller: What could he done that is not now being done to curb burgeoning welfare costs

February 1976/Illinois Issues/7

Campaign Financing Act makes it difficult for him to get contributions from Republican friends. They are embarrassed to be listed as helping a Democratic candidate

Dixon: More can be done. I can't understand why this administration has never really made a conscientious effort to reduce fraud in the public aid program. However small the percentage of fraudulent recipients may be � and there is a tremendous debate about this -� it is offensive to ordinary working people who have to earn their own living. Whether you are a Republican living in Kenilworth or a Democrat living in Taylorville, you are for taking care of our very needy, hungry people and you are against anyone on the rolls who isn't deserving. What you really need is strict prosecution of every fraud case with criminal penalties. Now the department [Public Aid] says, "Oh, we don't want to do that because there is only a couple hundred dollars involved and it costs more to prosecute than you can recover," and, of course, that is true. But 1 would point out that in the Internal Revenue Service it costs more to prosecute a person who cheats on his income tax than the amount you recover, but it has an effect on the population generally of making everyone scared stiff to cheat on income tax returns because they know about the very severe penalties. If this were true in public aid � if every fraud case were vigorously prosecuted and these people were jailed and penalized � you would have a good result.

Miller The new stale Constitution mandates the abolition of the corporate personal properly tax by 1979. The General Assembly, so far, has taken little action to implement this. Do you feel the legislature has been lax and should start moving in this direction?

Dixon: I don't see any reason to introduce that problem too early into the other problems we have now. However, I recognize, as do most who understand government, that ifs a problem that is going to occur shortly. You would have to observe that we can't afford that revenue loss. Something is going to have to be done to supplant it.

Miller: Of course, that revenue goes to local governments.

Dixon: That is correct. But you see the local governments have already lost the personal property tax in reference to individuals, and it has been a tremendous revenue loss for them. Now they are suffering from the consequences of the failure of the governor to recognize the commitments made by the General Assembly and the governor to the full funding of our schools. So, again local governments will have to look for other revenue at the local level. What I am trying to suggest is that you probably cannot abolish another revenue producer at the local level without giving local governments some sort of authority to supplant that revenue. What is going to happen, I don't know, but they are going to have to replace that lost revenue; they can't continue to lose revenue and continue to supply the same services.

Miller: You get what is normally referred to as a "good press." Do you consciously play to the press?

Dixon: No, I don't. But I consciously cooperate with the press and everybody else. On the whole, I've received a good press although I get my knocks, too. From time to time I get a bump or two when they are critical of me. One of the things I've always tried to do in public service with the press or anybody else is to be understanding about the criticism with the full knowledge that I'm not perfect and I do make mistakes. When people criticize my mistakes I should accept that in good grace and I do. When they are kind to me, I say "thanks." I think that's the way to be. I don't curry the favor of the press, but I do know the names of the people in the media and I enjoy their company on a one-to-one basis.

Miller: Because of the Illinois Campaign Financing Act, is it harder to get campaign contributions?

Dixon; Absolutely, without any question or doubt, and I have the classic example. I happen to enjoy a very substantial amount of support among Republicans in the state due to the fact that I've been state treasurer and have come to know a great many bankers, professional and business people all over Illinois. Many of my Republican friends would like to help me. They say, "Can I give you this contribution? say, "Now, you understand, it has to be reported, name, address and amount. and they say, "Oh, my goodness, it will be embarrassing to me with my friend because I'm a known Republican" say, "Well, I'm sorry, it's one of the problems we have in disclosure." Of course, these are very honorable, decent people. It's not a question of them being ashamed of giving me the money. It's the fact that when they go to the cocktail parties at their country clubs, and wherever they go in their business life, people will say, "Well, we thought you were a Republican and here you are giving a contribution to Alan Dixon for $1,000." So, it has had a very, very substantial impact on the amount of campaign contributions I am personally receiving.

Miller: Does it upset you so much that you would favor scrapping the act?

Dixon: Oh, no. I never favor scrapping laws that give the people the righ to know what is going on.

Miller: Should there be a limit placed on the amount a candidate can spend

Dixon: I favor that; although I think it has to be a reasonable limit or you defeat the purpose. You have to have a committee � maybe a joint committee of both the House and Senate � to determine what would be a fair amount A gubernatorial campaign in a big state like Illinois is expensive. I've run for state treasurer twice, and each time I have spent approximately $300,000 Candidly, you can't run decently for much less than that. I'm talking about a very minimal, a very low-profile television campaign where you buy advertising time during programs like the morning Today Show, which is relatively cheap. It has a limited audience but a good audience to reach intellectually superior people who are motivated to participate. The idea is to get a big bang with your buck, to make smart buys in the television market, to use limited billboards and radio and to use almost no newspaper ads except when newspapers endorse you and you reproduce the endorsements. To run for state treasurer or comptroller takes about $300,000. To run for attorney general takes a little more; to run for secretary of state takes a lot more perhaps double or triple the $300 000 To run for governor takes a lot more than that. You have to be reasonable about the amount or you induce cheating

8/February 1976/Illinois Issues

on the part of people who are not honorable, I regret to suggest there are some people who would take a chance. but 1 don"t think we want to encourage them. Prohibition didn't work because people were thirsty, and if they were going to have a drink, they were going to have a drink. If something won't work, what's the use of having it?

Miller: How do you feel about public financing of state campaigns'

Dixon: I favor that. I would prefer never having to go to my friends for contributions to a campaign, particularly since I think anyone who is honest has to recognize the fact that many who contribute do have a selfish motive. If you were to analyze all the dollars that go into political campaigns, I think you would find that the vast majority of contributions have some kind of selfish motive. Now, I don't say venal motive; I say selfish motive in the sense that the participant who is making the contribution hopes to gain a position of relative importance vis-a-vis the candidate or the public officeholder. I would favor a state-supported program to underwrite campaigns, but it would need careful analysis to take care of the problems of primaries and of determining who is a recognized candidate.

Miller: Turning now to the General Assembly, do you still hold to your earlier position that we should return to biennial sessions?

Dixon: I think [going to annual sessions] has been the single greatest mistake that has taken place in government in my 25 years of public service.

Miller: Should we retain annual sessions but limit the even-year meetings solely to budgetary matters?

Dixon: I have modified my position to that extent. We now have a $10 billion plus budget for one year, and that large a budget can't be ignored during any year. What 1 am now suggesting is a modified type of biennial session. One year would be for a session to consider all matters, and the other year would have a short session � say 90 days � to consider only fiscal and budgetary matters with no exceptions. The governor would still have the right to call special sessions and so would the legislative leaders. Alan Dixon still believes in "Dixon's Law" which is that the cost of government increases in direct proportion to the number of days the Illinois General Assembly is in session.�

9/February 1976 / Illinois Issues