This article originally appeared in U.S. News & World Report on Aug. 26, 1974.

Now that the smoke is clearing, lasting effects of Watergate are beginning to come into view. Some are good, some are bad – and all of them largely overlooked during the ordeal of the past few months.

The impact is deep and will be enduring. It will be a long time, if ever, before politics in the United States is the same again.

A massive drive is on in statehouse to overhaul the way elections are run. Congress is moving to enact new laws. And even without prodding, many politicians are racing to open up their financial affairs.

The over-all effect of Watergate is seen as having a cleansing effect on the nation's political process.

Former Attorney General Elliot Richardson puts it this way: "Watergate has made one significant contribution, at least to the extent that there are many officeholders who are becoming convinced that honest politics – open, candid politics – is the best politics."

Much the same thought comes from the Senate's No. 2 Republican, Robert Griffin, of Michigan: "I think we should have learned that we do have to have an open Presidency and that the people need to know what is going on."

That is just the kind of Presidency that Gerald R. Ford has vowed to conduct, as he said on August 9, by following his own "instincts of openness and candor."

In the future. But if more candor in politics is the most immediate effect, it is far from the only one. Even more far-reaching results may lie ahead, in the view of political leaders and students of politics and government.

Here are some things they foresee:

Continuation, if not an acceleration, of the trend toward more independence of party identification among voters – and, as a consequence, a threatened breakdown of the two-party system.

A weakened Presidency – or at the very least, a Congress that is likely to prove more aggressive in dealing with the White House.

Mounting pressures on the Democrats to pick a candidate in 1976 who appears to have a morally unblemished record.

As for the Republicans, almost everyone agrees that Mr. Ford can have the nomination just for the asking.

For all the changes in prospect, the consensus is that America's political system needs no drastic overhaul. The reaction to Watergate is taking care of that. The system set in train by the Founding Fathers is proving to be enormously resilient, able to withstand and eventually overcome the effects of recent scandals.

Pressure for reforms. It's in the field of campaign reform that Watergate is having the quickest impact, and in several ways.

Since 1972, 42 States – some with scandals of their own – have passed election-reform laws.

Congress is on the verge of enacting a plan designed to clean up political practices. It is against a background of popular revulsion against "dirty politics" that Congress and State legislatures are moving toward election reforms.

To Andrew Lewis, Republican candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania, this revulsion is a person thing. He tells this story: "In one town where I was introducing myself to people on the street, a guy told me, 'If you're a politician, you must be a crook.'"

Other politicians have been getting the same message, in public-opinion polls and in letters, as well as face to face. Hence the trend toward more openness and more candor in politics, along with limits on political 'spending.

Both the Senate and House have passed separate versions of an election-reform plan. Differences remain to be worked out. Yet in broad outline, this is what is shaping up:

Strict limits on amounts that White House aspirants can spend in presidential primaries.



Ceilings on what presidential candidates, once nominated, can spend in the election campaign itself.



Limits on what individuals can give to any one candidate, and all candidates together.



Curbs on what candidates for the House and Senate can collect and spend.



At least partial public financing of presidential primaries and campaigns.



Some way to enforce the rules on raising and spending political money.

Even without laws, many individual candidates and officeholders are moving on their own. They are making public their personal assets, sources of their incomes and even their tax returns—once seldom done. A few examples:



Senator Adlai Stevenson III, of Illinois, a Democrat, has disclosed a net worth of $668,250.

Houston Flournoy, Republican candidate for California's Governorship, detailed a 1973 income of $12,166 apart from his salary as controller of the State.

Representative Ella Grasso, Democratic nominee for Governor of Connecticut, revealed that she and her husband have net assets of $329,603.

Senator Howard Metzenbaum (Dem.) of Ohio, found himself involved in controversy over his taxes. He made public all of his federal tax returns for years—but that was not enough to save his seat. He lost in the primary to a former astronaut, John Glenn.

Voluntary limits. Not only is there more candor about financial affairs, but also some candidates are voluntarily putting limits on how much financial help they will accept.

Representative Pierre S. du Pont, a member of the wealthy Delaware family, is setting out to show that campaigns can be financed by small donations.

Mr. du Pont is one of a number of candidates limiting acceptable contributions to $100. He concedes: "This procedure will not make a Congressman more honest, but it will relieve a lot of them from the pressures large donors put on them. The result will be a somewhat more honest voting record. The pressure from a milk lobby or a labor union or big business can be enormous if they contribute half of a Congressman's campaign money."

Mr. du Pont adds: "Small contributions will bring the man in the street back into the political process—he will be more easily heard if the big voices don't drown him out."

In addition to smaller contributions, political candidates are relying more on volunteer workers and less on paid professionals.

In a few cases, donations that might be regarded as "tainted" are being returned. One donation of $5,000 was refunded by Senator Daniel Inouye, of Hawaii, a Democrat, to a friend under indictment for obstruction of justice.

Over all, nearly 30 per cent of the money donated by the three largest dairy co-operatives has been returned.

Some special political funds have been opened up for examination.

Senator Charles Percy, of Illinois, a Republican, listed details of a fund to finance an "exploration" of his presidential prospects. Mr. Percy now has abandoned the project.

Governor Wendell Anderson, Minnesota Democrat up for re-election, detailed the expenditures and many of the donors of his personal $249,654 political fund.

Since the first of this year, 21 States have enacted clean-election laws. While these laws differ in detail, they follow similar outlines.

A number have set up independent commissions to enforce clean government laws. Limits have been placed on campaign contributions and expenditures. Some States provide for dollar checkoffs on income taxes to help finance elections. Codes of ethics have been established. Lobbyists have been forced to air their activities. Open meetings of legislative committees have been decreed. Candidates and officeholders have been ordered to spell out their personal finances.

Two-party-system worries. Underlying these official efforts was a deep philosophical unease about the strains Watergate had imposed.

It's when they talk about the effect of Watergate on the two-party system and people's attitudes that most concern is expressed alike by political scientists and practicing politicians.

Political scientist Malcolm Moos is one who is concerned over the effects of Watergate on the two-party system. Mr. Moos, former adviser to President Eisenhower, a member of President Kennedy's Commission on Campaign Costs, recently retired from the presidency of the University of Minnesota to head the Fund for the Republic and the Center for Study of Democratic Institutions.

Mr. Moos sees Watergate as further weakening the two-party system, "especially when you couple the trend among young people with the massive movement which has been going on for the last 20 years toward independence in voting by the population in general – that grows out of the notion that somehow an independent is morally superior to a person who is a Republican or a Democrat." And he adds: "This has greatly weakened our party system and our party structure."

The dropout danger. The danger is seen that Watergate may result in a large number of political dropouts, among the young and old alike.

In some of this year's primaries and special elections, the voter turnout has been the lowest in memory.

This year, too, more members of Congress than in a long time – 37 in all – are voluntarily quitting politics, many as a direct result of Watergate.

Before President Nixon's resignation, Republican recruiters reported culty in lining up good candidates. And in some congressional districts the party is putting up no candidates at all.

Watergate-conscious Republicans are not happy with the signs they see cropping up in registration figures. For example, recent registration drives in Philadelphia enrolled nearly 43,000 new Democratic voters and fewer than 2,000 new Republicans. More than 10,000 Republicans switched to the Democratic Party, while fewer than 2,000 Democrats changed party labels.

Damage to the two-party system is reflected in the rising number of adults who call themselves "independents," rather than members of either party.

A recent Gallup Poll shows that 33 percent of adults now wear the "independent" label. That's a sharp rise in recent years. During this same span, those who call themselves Democrats rose to 44 percent from 42 percent. Those who consider themselves Republicans dropped to 23 percent from 28 percent just two years ago – the lowest level since 1940.

"Presidency . . . damaged." What about the Presidency as an institution?

The Senate's Democratic Leader, Mike Mansfield, of Montana, is convinced that "the Presidency has been damaged, without doubt."

The Senate Republican Leader, Hugh Scott, of Pennsylvania, agrees that the office has lost ground, especially in its relationship to Congress.

As examples, Mr. Scott cites newly enacted laws to limit a President's power to start war or impound funds appropriated by Congress, and to give the House and Senate a greater voice in the budget-making process.

To that list, a top Democrat adds a new law requiring Senate confirmation of the head of the Office of Management and Budget. This legislator predicts that more such laws are yet to come.

Even now, Congress is moving to prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from supplying the White House with data on a person's tax return, except on written request of the President.

The point is being made, too, that the power of the President is limited, or at least prescribed, by the Supreme Court decision requiring Mr. Nixon to surrender 64 tapes involved in the alleged Watergate cover-up.

Prof. James MacGregor Burns of Williams College, looking at Watergate as a political scientist, believes that the scandals "have raised grave questions of what has happened – or overly sensitive, overly aware – that Watergate will hang very heavily over them and the people for some time to come."

As Prof. Richard E. Neustadt of Harvard sees it, "Watergate is not typical of White House performance of either party." Yet, Mr. Neustadt adds:

"It is broadly suspected that all politicians do the sort of things that happened at Watergate. People feel that all politicians are bums."

Stress on "practical types." It may be a bit ironic, then, that one expected – and welcome – result of Watergate is that President Ford and future Presidents will bring to the White House staff more people with political experience, or at least political aptitudes.

Mr. Neustadt sums up a view widely shared by politicians and political scientists:

"One of the most important lessons that ought to have been learned by now is that practical types should be brought into government. It can be expected that a new Administration will be looking for Harlows instead of Haldemans."

The reference was to H. R. Haldeman, an advertising man who became President Nixon's top staff man, and now is under indictment, and Bryce Harlow, who has wide experience in politics and government. He was temporarily brought back to the White House after the Watergate scandals broke wide open, and President Ford is consulting him on the transition of power.

What, if any, effect will Watergate have on the 1976 election? Again, Mr. Neustadt voices a widely held view: "Potential candidates for the Presidency will have to lean over backward to show how different they are from the public conception" of politicians.

This trend, as Mr. Neustadt sees it, is hurtful for Senator Edward M. Kennedy, of Massachusetts, "because Watergate brings up the matter of Chappaquiddick." But Mr. Neustadt adds: "Kennedy would find himself in a position like Nelson Rockefeller on the money-corruption issue – too rich to steal."

To this, a national Republican leader, asking not to be named, sizes up the Democratic possibilities:

Senator Henry M. Jackson, of Washington, "would probably be their strongest candidate."

Senator Kennedy, "their most vulnerable candidate."

Senator Hubert Humphrey, of Minnesota, the former Vice President, "probably the most qualified candidate of either party," but he faces questions growing out of his fund-raising.

Can there be another Watergate?

Says Mr. Moos:

"You can't prevent dishonesty, of course. No civilization has ever been able to work out a system to prevent it. But we ought to be able to work out better institutional devices that will help detect dishonesty. Certainly, it shouldn't be rewarded."

Reflecting the views of many others, Senator Scott replies:

"Watergate has gone into the national memory bank. I think it is most unlikely that we will ever see another."

YouTube

More From 40 Years Ago:

"I have never been a quitter," the president told the nation. "To leave office before my term is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body. But as President, I must put the interests of America first."