Brochure, opens to 14" x 8 1/4".

There are two men running for Governor who want to run your life.
 
And one who doesn't.
 
Ed Clark
INDEPENDENT-LIBERTARIAN
FOR GOVERNOR
 

"Californians have been conned"
 
Governor Goodwin J. Knight,
Republican, 1953-1959
What he said ...
"Every effort is being made to keep State expenditures under control to avoid the imposition of unneeded taxes."
What happened ...
Tax revenues increased 38% during Knight's term.

Governor Edmund G. "Pat" Brown,
Democrat, 1959-1967
What he said ...
"I propose complete elimination of the tax on household property."
What happened ...
Tax revenues shot up 104% during Brown's term.

Governor Ronald Reagan,
Republican, 1967-1975
What he said ...
"I will stress economy in government and work to prevent further increases in the tax load."
What happened ...
Tax revenues skyrocketed 185% during Reagan's term.

Governor Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown,
Democrat, 1975-?
What he said ...
"People want to be left alone. They don't want some big bureaucratic state pushing them around."
What happened ...
Tax revenues have jumped 40% during the first three years of Brown's term.

"Traditional politicians have an unfortunate desire to regulate everything from our life styles to our businesses. We'd all be better off if the state of California got off our backs and out of our pocket books."
Ed Clark
Ed Clark

 
About Ed Clark

Ed Clark, 47, is a successful attorney and anti-trust specialist from Los Angeles. He received his Bachelor Degree with honors from Dartmouth and his Law Degree from Harvard, and served in the U.S. Navy as a lieutenant.

In 1977, Ed was elected to the governing council of the Health Systems Agency in Los Angeles County with support from organized labor, consumers, and the medical profession.

Ed lives in the Los Angeles area with his wife, Alicia, and their four-year-old-son, Edward Jr.


Toward a free and open society

For as long as Californians can remember, traditional politicians—Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals—have promised to reduce government, cut taxes, and decrease spending.

Just the opposite has happened. The cost of government keeps rising and expand­
ing and increasing. California voters finally said "Enough!" when over one million of them signed the Jarvis-Gann tax limitation initiative which became Proposition 13.

Much more needs to be done. Ed Clark is the man to do it.

Ed Clark is a new candidate for a new generation of Californians who are tired of
government interference and tired of being conned. An Independent-Libertarian, Ed Clark has broken away from the politics of the past and has created a new program, based on individual rights.

There are two men running for Governor who want to run your life. And there is Ed Clark, the Independent-Libertarian candi­date—who thinks the politicians have pushed us around long enough. Here are the corner­stones of Ed Clark's program.

Taxes–They must go down
 
As a Libertarian, Ed Clark believes that the least government is the best government. He knows that massive tax cuts will create new jobs, stimulate California's economy, and permit taxpayers to keep hundreds of dollars of their own money.

As governor, Ed Clark will provide tax credits—dollar-for-dollar deductions directly from your tax bill—for private expenditures made for services now provided by the
government.

Education–It must be improved
 
As a Libertarian, Ed Clark knows that private educational alternatives to public schools will offer a better education for our children at a lower cost. Government-run schools are a disgrace—many graduates can barely read and write—yet costs for public education increase even as the quality of education gets worse.

Ed Clark believes that parents, not the government, have the right to determine how their children are to be educated. He favors a free market in education, and will offer tax credits for parents who choose to educate their children privately at any level of schooling. These education tax credits will permit indi­viduals to deduct the cost of schooling directly from tax bills, and to spend the money they
save on quality education for their children.

Crime–Our priorities must change
 
As a Libertarian, Ed Clark understands that a government which is powerful enough to collect high taxes will also violate your civil liberties and personal freedoms. Millions of California tax dollars are wasted by prosecuting crimes with no victims, such as marijuana use and possession. The prosecution of victimless crimes clogs up the courts, crowds the prisons, and diverts police from the pursuit and capture of truly dangerous criminals.

Ed Clark favors swift justice and fixed sen­tences for those who commit crimes of violence and fraud, and he wants police to be available to combat these crimes. Therefore, he favors the complete and immediate abolition of laws against marijuana use and other peaceful, voluntary acts now called "victimless crimes."
 

"For the overtaxed, over­regulated, overburdened and underpowered millions of
the American middle class, Libertarians are the only people worth voting for."
Nicholas von Hoffman
Washington Post
 
About the Libertarian Party
 
Only six years old, the Libertarian Party is now the third-largest political party in the United States. It has gained support from all parts of the political spectrum due to its prin­cipled stand in favor of complete individual rights, and its firm opposition to government abuses.
 
"Various recent surveys have indicated that, if any trend in opinion is evident, it's toward libertarianism—the philosophy that argues against government intervention and for personal rights."
Alan Baron
Washington Editor
Politics Today
Paid for by Ed Clark for Governor Committee   Treasurer — Daniel Wiener



ED CLARK for Governor
 
1620 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, California 94111

If you would like to help Ed Clark, please tear of this panel and mail it back to us.

_ I want to volunteer

_ I want to contribute
   Enclosed is $100   $50   $20
    (other)

_ Please send me more information

REGISTER LIBERTARIAN

Tabloid, 9 1/2" x 15".                                                                                                                              Courtesy of UCLA Library Special Collections | Online Campaign Literature Archive

Published by the Ed Clark for Governor Committee and the Libertarian Party.

LIBERTARIAN MOVES UP ON BROWN, YOUNGER

In a year when Californians are thoroughly disappointed with the nom­inees for Governor of the two estab­lished parties, Libertarian Ed Clark is providing a real alternative.

Across the state, Californians are turning to Ed Clark and the Libertarian Party. Clark's message of lower taxes, less government, and more personal freedom is finding sympathizers from both left and right, and from citizens disillusioned with the indistignuishable policies of Democrats and Republicans.

In order to get Clark's name on the ballot, over 1000 supporters across the state collected more than 183,000 sig­natures on petitions. Just as the people had to circumvent the politicians to get tax relief this spring, they had to circumvent the two traditional parties to get a real alternative on the ballot for Governor.

Ed Clark offers bold new programs, in contrast to the tired old solutions of Jerry Brown and Evelle Younger.

As Ed Clark told the Town Hall Forum in Los Angeles, "Brown and Younger are so caught up in the system that has created our problems that it is virtually impossible for them to under­stand how they can be solved. They want to shuffle deck chairs on the Ti­tanic when more fundamental measures are clearly called for."

Ed Clark is campaigning up and down the state calling for tax cuts, less government, and more freedom in our personal lives. He has proposed abo­lition of the state sales tax to save $5.5 billion for all California taxpayers. He pledges a program of income tax credits to allow parents to choose non-govern­ment schools for their children. To save tax dollars and increase personal free­dom, he urges repeal of "victimless crime" laws and an end to police prosecution of peaceful citizens.

Ed Clark began fulltime campaigning in mid-September following the con­clusion of his successful petition drive. Since then, he has been in every major city in the state and has received major media attention around the state.

Californians looking for an altern­ative on November 7 should look to Ed Clark.

photo: Ed Clark turns in signatures supporting his candidacy to the San Francisco Registrar.


ED CLARK SPEAKS OUT ON THE ISSUES

On September 20, the Sacrament Union said, ''The reporters who are used to hearing carefully crafted lies from politicians were plainly delighted that Ed Clark was willing to stand before them and give straight answers to straight questions." In the following interview, Ed Clark demonstrates his commitment to give honest answers to the questions Californians are asking.

Q: Mr. Clark, why are you running for Governor?
Ed Clark: To raise the banner of a new political alternative in California. The alternative is libertarianism, a move­ment to roll back the size of govern­ment and let people run their own lives. That's where the people of this state seem to want to go, yet none of the establishment politicians is willing or able to take us there.

Q: What is a Libertarian, and how do you differ from Republicans and Democrats?
Ed Clark: The goal of a libertarian is, as the name suggests, liberty-mean­ing that we intend to use every chance we can to get government out of our pocketbooks, out of our bedrooms, and out of our lives.

Republicans are not the party of freedom–they support government subsidies to big business, government spy­ing and crackdowns on civil liberties. And the Democrats are no better–they support more government spending and greater control over the economy. State government has continued to grow un­der both parties: state tax revenues increased 185% in Reagan's term and un­der Brown they have increased 40%. There is only one place for voters to turn for more freedom, and that's to Libertarians.

Q: But after Proposition 13 passed, aren't all the politicians saying that they are for less government? Do you think politicians have finally got the message?
Ed Clark: Not at all. In fact, the reaction of the politicians and bureau­crats to proposition 13 is a symbol of what's wrong with political power in this state.

While people were being bled white by property taxes, Jerry Brown was sitting on the biggest State surplus in California history. Did Brown show any inclination to give that money back to the people then? Did Evelle Younger raise his voice about tax cuts? No. And when Proposition 13 came along to give us some badly needed relief, Younger was too timid to work for it, and Brown had the gall to fight against it. So Californians had to rise up in anger and slash taxes on their own, with no help from the politicians.
 
Today, after crushing Californians with the burden of property taxes, after fighting against tax relief, all Brown can do is make mocking jokes about being a "born-again tax cutter." I can't believe that Californians will fall for this blatant hypocrisy. The record of Jerry Brown and Evelle Younger indicates that they cannot be trusted to reduce taxes and spending in the long run. They have no commitment to roll back the state; they are simply political opportunists out to save their own necks.

Even worse, the reaction of the state bureaucracies to 13 was not to loosen their stranglehold on the public by giv­ing up power and cutting back programs significantly. Instead, they ran to the state to divvy up the surplus. But what happens when there is no more surplus? They haven't the foggiest idea what to do–and neither do Brown and Younger.

The fact is, Proposition 13 was more than a tax cut. It was a vote of no con­fidence in the system and the politicians who run it. Brown and Younger are both representatives of the kind of poli­ticians who got us into the mess. And no amount of hand-shaking with Howard Jarvis can change that.

If Californians want to make the revolt against big government serious and permanent, they will have to find a new direction. And I'm the only candi­date articulating a philosophy and a po­litical program consistent with the spirit of 13.

Q: A lot of people agree with you, Mr. Clark, but are reluctant to "throw away" their vote on someone with only a slim chance to win. How do you re­spond to this?
Ed Clark: The best way to waste your vote is to opt for one of those Madison Avenue politicians offered by the Democrats and Republicans. What   are you voting for when you vote for Jerry Brown or Evelle Younger? A TV image? A public relations firm? A movie star's endorsement? Since they don 't stand for anything, a vote for them means nothing. And people realize this. 800,000 people who voted on Proposition 13 did not vote for any candidate in the primary for governor. They know that a vote for those people is meaningless.

A vote for Ed Clark, on the other hand, is a vote with clout. It is a vote that says: I want freedom; I want gov­ernment out of my life! The message
(continued p. 2)


photo: Ed Clark meets with supporter Orson Bean.

comes across loud and clear.

What's more, if I get 2% of the vote in this election, the Libertarian Party has a chance to qualify for permanent ballot status. The people of California would be given a lasting alternative in an historically unprecedented way. That is a meaningful vote. Or, if I get more votes than the margin of victory be­tween Brown and Younger, it means that whoever lost the election might have won if he had adopted libertarian positions. If I take away enough votes from a politician to cost him the elec­tion, he will move in my direction. That is a meaningful vote. And if I get more than 2%–say 5%–libertarian ideas and proposals will suddenly be the talk of California. That is a meaningful vote.

Q: You have mentioned threats to our personal freedom and civil liberties, in addition to the economic oppression of high taxes. Can you give some examples?
Ed Clark:· The ugliest example is the Briggs Initiative, or Proposition 6. This measure would not only fire homosex­ual teachers from the public schools, it would also allow school boards to fire anybody who said anything favorable about gay rights.

I oppose Proposition 6. Gay people are taxed to pay for the public schools just like the rest of us. As long as this is the case, they have the right to teach in the public system. There should be no legal discrimination against them, be­cause the government has no business encouraging or discouraging any sexual prefernece. That is something that's up to the free choice of individuals.

Our civil liberties are also threatened by meddlesome laws that say we can't smoke marijuana, or cigarettes (if Prop­osition 5 passes), or look at porno­graphy, or any number of other peace­ful, victimless activities. I think that consenting adults have the right to do as they please as long as they don't hurt other people. Government exists to protect us, not to regulate our lifestyles. I would work to repeal all laws prohibit­ing drug use, prostitution, pornography, and so on. As I announced at a press conference in San Francisco recently, I would pardon all individuals now in jail because of these laws.

Attorney General Younger, on the other hand, has been vigorously prose­cuting victimless crimes. His office keeps files on 400,000 people convicted of using marijuana. These files should be thrown out-along with Younger himself. And Governor Brown has also come out against decriminalization of marijuana. His support for civil liberties varies with the opinion polls.

There is one other civil liberty issue I am concerned about. In a recent case involving the Stanford Daily, the Su­preme Court ruled that police can raid newsrooms to look for evidence. This threat to freedom of the press must be countered by specific legislation pro­hibiting police raids. And guaranteeing both the free press and private property rights.

Q: Mr. Clark, the San Francisco Chronicle said you were the only can­didate to ''vigorously support" Propo­sition 13. Aren't you also the only can­didate to propose several new tax cuts?
Ed Clark: That's right–Proposition 13 is only the beginning. I have pro­posed abolition of California's burden­some sales tax. Sales taxes are particu­larly oppressive to the poor because they are added to basic necessities like gasoline, vitamins, and clothing. I have also proposed a $500 tax credit for renters, in order to extend tax relief to people who did not directly benefit from 13. I'm also working for a tuition tax credit for the costs of non-public education.

Q: How do your tax proposals differ from others, such as Rep. Leo McCar­thy's plan to end property taxes on homeowners by increasing taxes on bus­iness property?
Ed Clark: The establishment poli­ticians are up to their usual tricks; they are trying to shift the tax burden around instead of reducing taxes. They are playing a shell game with the voters, attempting to buy off one group by shifting the burden to another. But the
Continued next column
 
''Clark was an early and strong supporter of Proposition 13.''
– San Francisco Chronicle

real problem is not so much who pays taxes as the incredibly high burden of the taxes themselves. You don't elim­inate government spending, waste and bureaucracy by shuffling around the burden. We need tax cuts, not tax shifts.

Q: If taxes are cut the way you sug­gest, then the size and power of govern­ment would also have to be cut.
Ed Clark: Exactly.

Q: What specific cutbacks do you propose?
Ed Clark: I thought you'd never ask. The state Budget Summary is a 200-page monument to boondoggles, subsidies, oppression and just plain theft. It has grown and grown while the quality of life has gone downhill. There are plenty of places to cut. We can stop throwing away money on vice squads and drug busts; this would sharply re­duce the amount of time and money police spend enforcing some bureau­crat's notion of morality. My program of tax credits for people attending private schools would reduce enrollment in the public system, allowing for large budget cuts there. Compulsory school attendance laws are not only harmful to the quality of education and a violation of individual rights, they also waste money on truant officers, attendance records, police guards, and other things. These expenditures can be eliminated. I would cut back state spending on the University system, which is nothing but a massive program for taking money away from lower-income people and giving it to the upper middle class. I would eliminate all state subsidies to special interests, from the nuclear power industry to the milk industry. I would cut welfare and other so-called "social services" because they are simply a cover for the never-ending expansion of bureaucratic jobs and salaries, and do little if anything to help the poor.

The point is that government does not just waste money, it steals money­—it enriches some at the expense of others. When government programs represent an unwarranted intrusion into people's rights, we don't want "effic­ient" government–we want less govern­ment.

Q: You have repeatedly pointed to the public school system as an example of government's failure. What's wrong with the public schools?
Ed Clark: The people of California have lost faith in the government-run school system. And with good reason. Education in California is a disgrace. You have more bureaucrats accomplish­ing less–at higher salaries. You have test scores going down while costs go up. And the schools are not only in­effective and wasteful, they are author­itarian, compulsory places. In many cases they breed crime and vandalism. Every parent who can afford to is de­serting the public system for alternative schools. Most people are not aware that while Proposition 13 was passing by a 65% to 35% majority, Proposition 1, a $350 million school bond issue, was defeated by the same whopping margin. I think that expresses the voters' feel­ings about the schools.

Q: How would you solve these problems?
Ed Clark: My answer can be sum­med up in one word: choice. We've got to give people the power to choose the kind of education they want. And the way to give them this choice is to eliminate forced attendance and provide tax credits for tuition costs.

Q: Could you explain how a tax credit works?


Clark on the Issues
Ed Clark: It's very simple. Let's say that to escape the public schools you send your child to an alternative school. If the cost of an alternative school is $800, then you would get to deduct $800 from your State tax bill.

Right now, people who attend alter­native schools have to pay for education twice: they pay for government schools through taxes and they pay for the tuition of the alternative school. Only people with a lot of money can afford that. The rest of us are stuck with the incompetent public system. But a tax credit would make decent schools avail­able to everyone. It would give people a choice. And it would improve the pub­lic system by subjecting it to com­petition.

"I've met Ed Clark and I think he's a great humanitarian. I fully support his candidacy and urge all my supporters to vote for him. Democrats, Republicans, and In­dependents alike can learn from Ed Clark and the Libertarian Party that you can't legislate morality. ''
–Dennis Peron
Shot and jailed for selling marijuana

Abolishing forced attendance would also give people a choice. Forced at­tendance is responsible for most of the crime and vandalism associated with public schools. If you treat children like criminals by locking them up for 12 years in an environment they did not choose, then they tend to act like criminals.

Q: What you say sounds reasonable. Yet teachers unions and many profes­sional educators are strongly opposed to tax credits for private schools.
Ed Clark: I can't really blame them. If I ran a monopoly that cost more every year to educate fewer students at higher costs and fatter salaries, I would be very concerned about a proposal to break up that monopoly by giving par­ents the power of choice. If tax credits are implemented, the teachers unions and education bureaucrats know that they would have to cut costs and start giving kids a decent education or else they're not going to have any students left. That's the wonderful thing about competition–it weeds out incompe­tence. And the only people who fear competition are incompetents.

Q: Some people have charged that giving parents a choice would lead to racially segregated schools. Do you agree?
Ed Clark: No. The reason most people don't like integration is not be­cause of race, but because of the crummy school at the end of the bus ride.

The best answer to this charge came from Roy Innis, the head of the Con­gress on Racial Equality (CORE). It's safe to say that Mr. Innis is not inter­ested in segregated schools, just good schools. He said, "It is time to give poor and minority families a chance to vote with their feet, the chance to use private education ... It is no surprise that tu­ition tax credits are opposed by school boards and unions. Such bills would put more power in the hands of parents, power to choose schools."

The fact is, minorities have always gotten the short end of the stick when it comes to government-provided schools. In the city of Oakland, where the schools are about 80% minority, reading levels are 45 percentiles below the national average. The public schools of Los Angeles, also heavily minority, are in terrible shape. Now, is it racist to give minorities the wherewithal to choose better schools? Is it racist to offer minorities an alternative to the public monopoly that has failed them so tragically, for so long?

Q: What are you going to do about jobs in California?
Ed Clark: It's a reflection on our present governor that unemployment here is higher than the national average. The solution is to deregulate and de-tax the economy so that businesses can ex­pand and create jobs. Other politicians want to shift the tax burden to bus­inesses instead of cutting taxes for everybody, as I propose. In the short run, this looks good because businesses don't vote. But in the long run, high taxes drive businesses into other states, if they don't drive them into bank­ruptcy. Less taxation and regulation will create new jobs.

I also advocate eliminating the California minimum wage. The highest level of unemployment here is among minority teenagers, so we must find ways to open up more jobs for them. The rea­son they are unemployed is the min­imum wage. Lots of employers have low-skill jobs available, suitable for younger people, but the minimum wage prices them out of the market. In many cases, it's just not worth it to pay an in­experienced, temporary young worker $2.65 an hour. So employers hire more experienced adults, or use automation. The result: no jobs for the young. And then they never get the job experience they need to get better jobs later on.
 
Q: Is that the reason why every time the minimum wage goes up, so does the teenage unemployment rate?

''Clark will actively work with groups opposing the Briggs in-­iative.''
–Oakland Tribune

Ed Clark: Of course. Every increase in the minimum wage has led to a di­rect, visible increase in teenage unem­ployment. Even worse, most of the unemployment resulting from minimum wage hikes has been concentrated on minority teenagers–the people who need the jobs the most. It is not an exaggeration to say that the minimum wage is a racist law. It may not have been racist in intent, but as the black economist, Walter Williams, points out, it has been disproportionately harmful to minority youth.

Q: Crime control has emerged as a major issue in the campaign. Where do you stand?
Ed Clark: There has been an inor­dinate amount of hype and posturing associated with this issue, but very little serious thought. Every election year, the politicians strut about like sheriffs in an old Hollywood Western trying to show how tough they are on crime, but nothing ever changes. I think that crime is a very serious matter, and requires a good deal more than public relations ploys.

The first thing a governor can do to control crime is to put top priority on stopping violent crime, and stop wasting time and money on vice squads, drug busts and political spying. A recent gov­ernment study found that 21% of all persons appearing in a city's Superior Court system were accused of victimless crimes. Can we afford to spend 21 % of our court system's resources on these things while muggers and murderers plea-bargain their way to freedom be-
(continued on p. 4)

Clark on the Issues
cause of clogged courts? The American Bar Association estimated that nearly 50% of the cop-on-the-beat's time is spent on victimless crimes. This squan­dering of our protection services on relatively harmless activities has got to stop.

In the case of drug laws, there's more involved than mere waste. Narcotics prohabition actually creates crime, just as alcohol prohibition created the gang­ster problem. If narcotics were legal, they would be a relatively inexpensive habit like cigarettes. Making them il­legal pushes the price up so high that the only way to sustain a habit is to rob the people in your neighborhood. The prohibition of narcotics is thus respon­sible for a large percentage of the rob­bings and killings in poor neighbor­hoods. A study in Detroit showed that whenever police crack down on drugs, the price goes up–leading to an increase in crime. That is why urban mayors­–such as Gary, Indiana, Mayor Richard Hatcher–have called for decriminaliza­tion of drugs.

"While the other candidates seem intent on obfuscation, Ed Clark speaks out clearly on the issues."
KXTV, Sacramento

''In November vote for Ed Clark, the Libertarian candidate for Governor."
Orson Bean
–Actor

Q: Not all crime is drug related. What can be done about the rest of it?
Ed Clark: The most promising solu­tion is being explored in Oklahoma: a criminal justice system based on resti­tution to the victim. Under a restitu­tion system, instead of locking up an offender with a bunch of hardened criminals and releasing him after a few years, you make the criminal work to earn enough money to compensate his or her victim. This establishes a direct relationship between the crime and the punishment. The victim is paid back for his or her losses, and the criminal is more likely to understand the costs of his crime. Punishing the criminal by making him compensate his victim makes a lot more sense than throwing him into a jail where he has no respon­sibility, no chance to learn a skill, and is always in the company of other criminals.

Q: What about capital punishment?
Ed Clark: I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. In principle, I see nothing wrong with executing someone guilty of a particularly heinous ­crime. But this also places an enormous amount of power in the hands of the government. This power has often been abused–the death penalty has been used against minorities; a black person in the South was much more likely to be exe­cuted than a white person, for example.

Frankly, I think politicians like Brown, Younger and John Briggs are using the death penalty as a way of looking "tough" on crime, without con­fronting the real problems in our courts and legal system. The important issue is to make sure there is swift, sure justice—­that criminals are caught, tried fairly and quickly, and given a sentence that fits the crime. Talking about the death penalty just glosses over the problems of clogged courts, plea-bargaining, mis­placed police priorities and wasted money that impede justice today.

Q: Mr. Clark, we've covered a lot of ground. Is their anything you would like to say to summarize your views?
Ed Clark: Yes, there is. I would like to communicate a sense of the tragic in­justice of government and the politi­cians to pit us against each other. As the power of government has grown like a cancer, intruding more and more into our lives, I have seen taxpayers pitted against the poor; the young pitted against the elderly; whites pitted against blacks; gays pitted against straights. Ali in a heartless game of political manipu­lation. As far as I can see, the only pur­pose to this game is to buy enough votes to keep some unprincipled politician in office at our expense. I think that Cal­ifornians have had enough.

I look forward to a society of free­dom, prosperity and harmony. I think we can achieve these goals by cutting back the power of government. Cali­fornians should reclaim the right to run their own lives.



Now Number 3
LIBERTARIAN PARTY CONTINUES RAPID GROWTH

The Libertarian Party, founded in 1971, is America's third-largest and fastest-growing political party. In 1976, in its first Presidential campaign, Libertarian Roger MacBride and David Bergland polled more votes than any of the established "third parties" and were on more ballots than any other candi­dates except Ford and Carter.

The Libertarians thus became viewed as the front-line challengers to the GOP and the Democrats in the off-year elec­tion of 1978 and in the 1980 presiden­tial contest.

LP leaders attribute their phenom­enal growth to their ability to attract supporters from liberal, conservative, and non-political backgrounds; party activists include former supporters of both Barry Goldwater and Eugene Mc­Carthy, as well as many people who never saw anything worthwhile in poli­tics until the LP was formed.

We're the only party that consis­tently defends freedom; that's why we appeal to such a broad range of people," says National Chairman David Bergland, now a candidate for the State Senate from Orange County.

For years, political debate in the United States has been confined to a phony tug-of-war between liberals and conservatives, as if these two choices were the only alternatives.

Liberals have half-heartedly sup­ported civil liberties, while working to reduce economic freedom. Conserv­atives favor a bit more economic free­dom, while working to crush civil lib­erties and enforce social conformity.

Libertarians reject both of these in­consistent positions. Because of their commitment to the concept of indi­vidual rights, Libertarians strongly sup­port freedom in both social and eco­nomic affairs.

They believe government has no right to interfere with anyone's personal, social, or economic activities so long as they are peaceful, voluntary, and honest.

In 1978, the Libertarian Party is clearly emerging as the only serious challenger to the Democrats and Repub­licans across the country. This is clear in California, where Ed Clark is increas­ingly viewed as a major competitor in the race for Governor. In addition, three Libertarian candidates for the legislature, David Bergland and Jim Gal­lagher in Orange County and Ed Ogawa in Los Angeles, are making strong races in their respective districts.

Clark expects to get several hundred thousand votes and has stated, "If I could talk to every voter in California about my programs, I'm convinced I would be elected. My challenge is to see just how many voters I can reach between now and the election."

When the votes are counted on No­vember 7, you can expect the political commentators to be surprised at the showing of the Libertarian Party.


photo: Ed and Alicia Clark attend a reception with San Diego supporters.
ABOUT ED CLARK

Ed Clark, 48, is a successful business attorney from Los Angeles. He received his Bachelor's Degree with honors from Dartmouth and his Law Degree from Harvard, and served in the U.S. Navy as a lieutenant.

Becoming disillusioned with the pro­grams offered by the two traditional political parties, Ed became a founder of the Libertarian Party in 1972 and has served on its National Committee ever since.

In 1977, Ed was elected to the gov­erning council of the Health Systems Agency in Los Angeles County with support from labor, consumers, and the medical profession.

Ed's wife Alicia was born Alicia Garcia Cobos in Vera Cruz, Mexico. She graduated from the National Uni­versity of Mexico with honors and worked for Celanese Mexicana before coming to the United States. Her family still lives in Mexico, where her brother Jose Luis Garcia ("Chito") is Manager of the Mexico City Tigers AAA baseball team.

Ed and Alicia Clark live in the Los Angeles area with their four-year-old son Neddy.


REGISTER LIBERTARIAN

To become a permanent ballot party, we need to get about 63,000 California voters registered as Libertarians. We're on our way to that goal, but we still need a lot more registrants.

If you think that the Libertarian Party has the right answers for today;s problems, or if you'd just like to see a permanent alternative on the ballot in California, you should register as a Libertarian. You can still vote in gen­era] elections and in all referendums and non-partisan elections. Registering Libertarian does not obligate you to vote for Libertarian candidates, though we hope you will.

To register Libertarian, just call your local Registrar of Voters and ask them to send you a registration card. In the section on the card marked "Political Party," just check "Other" and write in "Libertarian."

Phone numbers for the Registrar of Voters in a few major counties are listed below:
Los Angeles
San Francisco
San Diego
Orange
Santa Clara

Call today!


''When we campaigned for Proposition 13, none of the Democratic and Republican poli­ticians would support us. But Ed Clark traveled all across the state
speaking out for Prop 13. And now Ed Clark is calling for further tax cuts. That's why I'm voting for Ed Clark for Governor.''
—Al Meakin, Chairman
Proposition 13 Campaign, San Francisco

"The reporters who are used to hearing carefully crafted lies were plainly delighted that Ed Clark was willing to stand before them and give straight answers to straight questions.''
–Dan Walters
Sacramento Union

''The issues Clark talked about Tuesday were support for private schools and less concentration by police on victimless crimes.''
–Los Angeles Times

''Clark's platform comes as a refreshing challenge to California's traditional political oratory. He speaks openly, caring little for how his views could cost him the backing of special interest groups."
–San Francisco Examiner

"Ed Clark is a soft-spoken man of conviction with ideas that criss-cross Republican-Democratic lines and approach the public mood more directly than anything else in generations.''
– Dan Hoenshell
Sacramento Union

"The Libertarian candidate, Ed Clark, would be a tremendous governor."
–Paul Gann 
Co-author, Proposition 13

HOW TO CONTACT US
To get in touch with the Clark for Governor campaign or the Libertarian Party, call the following numbers:
State HQ
Los Angeles
San Diego
Orange County
Santa Barbara
Ventura
San Bernardino
Sacramento
Placer County
Nevada County
Santa Clara
Oakland
Sonoma
Santa Cruz
San Mateo

MOVE UP WITH THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY!


HELP!The Clark for Governor campaign can use your help. We need money to print more literature and to run radio and television advertising, as well as to pay for Ed Clark's travel all across the state. If you'd like to make a contribution it will be greatly appreciated. Just send in the coupon below.HELP!

OK, I'll help. I want to see Ed Clark's message reach all the voters of California. Here's my maximum contribution of:
$25   $50   $100   $250   $500   Other ___

_I'd like to do volunteer work.
_Send me __ bumper stickers.
_Send me __ pieces of literature to distribute.
_Send me more information on Ed Clark and the Libertarian Party.

Send this form today to:

Clark for Governor
620 Montgomery St.
San Francisco, CA 94111