(d) Senator-file statement with House and Senate.

Filing with the clerk of the United States district court

Section 205: Copy of every statement shall also be filed with the clerk of the United States district court where political committee is located

statements by political committees-file in district in which candidate resides

statements by candidates-file in district in which contributions are received and expenditures made

Formal requirement on filing statements

Section 206

(1) Statements shall be verified

(2) Properly filed when mailed

(3) Statements shall be preserved for 10 years from date of filing

Duties of Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate

Section 207 (a)

(1) To develop uniform methods and forms

(2) Make statements available for public record

(3) To ascertain if paper statements have been filed

(4) Publish summaries

(b) See if Senate shall report delinquency to Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate

(c) Clerk of House shall report delinquency to the Committee on House Administration

Suspension of the administration of this act

Section 208: House and Senate committees

(1) to study reports and summaries

(2) ascertain any delinquency

(3) report violations to law-enforcing agencies

(4) Take other required action

(5) to report their activities to the respective Chamber

Limitation upon amount of expenditures

Section 209

(a) Senator, Representative, Delegate, Resident Commissioner

(b) Campaign for election (primaries, nominating conventions, caucuses and special and general elections considered separate for purpose of this limitation)

For Senator, $50,000

For Representative at large, $50,000

For Representative, $12,500

For Delegate, $12,500

For Resident Commissioner, $12,500

Election other than a caucus or nominating convention

(b) (2)

for Senator, 10 cents X total votes cast in either last primary or last general election for all candidates for that office

for Representative at Large, maximum, $250,000

for Representatives, use same method as above

for Delegate, for Resident Commissioner, maximum, $25,000

(c) NOTE.-Maximum in (b) (2) above must include expenditures made on behalf of the candidate by political committees

Where political committee supports more than one candidate, allocate to each candidate in the same ratio as expenditures on behalf each candidate for printing, advertising, radio time, and TV bears to the total of such expenditures.

Penalties

Section 210

(a) Fine not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both

If violation was willful not more than $10,000 and imprisoned not more than 2 years

61589-55- -15

(b) Any candidate who knowingly consents to any violation by an authorized political committee

not more than $10,000 and

not more than 2 years

Expenses of election contests

Section 211: Does not apply to expenditures for proper legal expenses in contesting the results of an election

State laws not affected

Section 212. State laws directly inconsistent with this law are invalid

Partial invalidity

Section 213. "This act"-saving clause

TITLE III. AMENDMENTS TO CRIMINAL CODE

Section 301: Definitions

Section 302: Limitations on Financial Aid to Candidates

$10,000 (contributions or expenditures in the aggregate, covers nomination or election or succes of any national political party) Penalty, $5,000 or not more than 5 years or both

(This does not apply to a political committee.)

Maximum contributions to and expenditures by interstate political committees Section 303: No political committee operating in two or more States shall receive contributions or make expenditures greater than

20 cents X total votes cast for all candidates for the office of President in any of the last three final elections for that office.

Contributions by national banks, corporations and labor organizations
Section 304

(a) Candidates or political committees may not, for any Federal election, use funds received directly or indirectly from a labor union, corporation, or national bank

(b) violation

Not more than $10,000, not more than 1 year, or both

if willful

$10,000 or not more than 2 years, or both

Senator CURTIS. Our first witness this morning in person is Mr. Clarence Mitchell of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Mr. Mitchell, will you give your name and title and your residence to the reporter, please?

TESTIMONY OF CLARENCE MITCHELL, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON BUREAU, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Senator Curtis.

My name is Clarence Mitchell, director of the Washington bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in Washington, D. C., and I am acompanied by Mr. J. Francis Pohlhaus who is counsel of the Washington bureau. Senator Curtis, Mr. Pohlhaus is here primarily in case there are questions about the technical amendment.

Senator CURTIS. We are delighted to have him.

Mr. MITCHELL. He was formerly in the Civil Rights Section of the Department of Justic and has had a lot of experience with these problems of voting and that sort of thing, so he would be able to give some very good advice if it is asked.

I am a resident of the State of Maryland. Mr. Pohlhaus is a resident of Washington.

Senator CURTIS. Does your paper disclose the scope of the association that you represent?

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes; the paper does not disclose, but I can say for the record

Senator CURTIS. For the record, tell us who you represent.

Mr. MITCHELL. We represent the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which is an organization founded in 1909. It is a New York corporation and we have branches in most of the States of the Union. Our membership numbers approximately 350,000 people. We operate under a national board of directors which is made up of persons from many States of the Union and is interracial in character.

We also have an annual convention each year. Last year it met in Dallas, Tex. This year it will meet in Atlantic City, N. J. Is that

sufficient?

Senator CURTIS. Yes. Now, you have a prepared statement, do you not?

Mr. MITCHELL. If I may, Senator Curtis, I would like to offer my statement for the record and then attempt to summarize it orally. Senator CURTIS. Without objection, the full statement will be printed in the record at this point and then you may proceed with

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Clarence Mitchell, director of the Washington bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Our organization has always supported legislation which will guarantee the maximum participation of qualified citizens in local, State, or national elections.

Our testimony on S. 636 supports section 305 of the bill because it fixes responsibility for literature published on behalf of candidates seeking office. We also urge that the bill be amended to strengthen existing laws in order to prevent practices which deprive whole sections of our population of a chance to vote.

The need for the provisions of section 305 are obvious to anyone who has lived through some of the recent campaigns in the South. In some of the States, candidates for Congress have been attacked on a wide variety of unjust charges, including treason. The race issue has been emphasized by dishonest candidates. In the First Congressional District of Maryland, the 1954 campaign was based to a great extent on false promises by the Democratic candidate for Congress who tried to defeat the incumbent Representative Edward T. Miller, a Republican. Mr. Miller's opponent promised that he would halt integration in the public schools. Fortunately, Mr. Miller did not stoop to a similar type of campaigning, but, instead, kept his speechmaking and advertising on a high level that supported law and order. It is not only the Democrats who have resorted to such tactics. In the 1952 presidential campaign, the race issue was used in an effort to get southern support for the National Republican ticket. Two examples of these practices come from the States of North and South Carolina. In each instance, the expense connected with the distribution and publication of these materials showed that those responsible for them were backed by a person or persons with a large amount of money to spend.

The Aiken Standard and Review of Aiken, S. C., published a quarter-page ad on November 4, 1952, which included the following:

Do you want to end segregation? Do you want white and colored attending the public schools together? Working together? We know that your answer isNo. If Stevenson is elected, he is pledged to do away with segregation everywhere. Eisenhower believes this is a matter for the States. Vote for a man who believes as you do. Vote for Eisenhower.

This ad stated that it was authorized by the South Carolinians for Eisenhower and carried the names of a Douglas McKay, chairman; W. S. Reamer, Jr., vice chairman, and B. M. Edwards, treasurer. On the eve of the 1952 election, an airplane dropped circulars over North Carolina cities which included the following:

Do you want a Negro in your job? Do you want a Negro as your boss? That is what may happen if Eisenhower loses in the coming election. In order to save our way of life-in order to avoid racial struggle-we, the white people of the South, must vote for Ike Eisenhower.

We offer for the record photostatic copies of these ads.

This type of campaign literature was used extensively in the 1952 election and is frequently used in other Federal elections. Usually, it is repudiated by the candidate seeking office, but, as a rule, disavowal of it comes too late to have any effect on the outcome of elections.

It is important to say, for the record, that those who campaigned for the President with this type of literature in North and South Carolina have been repudiated twice. First, they were not successful in carrying their States for the candidate they endorsed. Second, President Eisenhower has shown by his personal example and executive action that he opposes the kind of racial bigotry that these ads sought to promote.

All Americans, regardless of party, should be grateful because Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower have put the White House stamp of approval on equality of treatment without regard to race, religion, or national origin.

We also recommend that S. 636 be amended to include a new section 306 under title III. This section would read as follows:

SEC. 306. Title 18, United States Code, section 594, is amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 594. Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Members of Senate, or Members of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories and possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing such candidates, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both."

Section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. C. 31) is amended as follows: "All citizens of the United States who are otherwise eligible by law shall be entitled to and allowed the same and equal opportunity to qualify to vote and to vote at any general, special, or primary election by the people conducted in or by any State, Territory, district, county, city, parish, township, school district, municipality, or other territorial subdivision without distinction, direct or indirect, based on race, color, religion, or national origin; any constitution, law, custom, usage, or regulation of any State or Territory, or by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding. The right to qualify to vote and to vote, as set forth herein, shall be deemed a right within the meaning of, and protected by, the provisions of title 18, United States Code, section 242, as amended, section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (8 U. S. C. 43), and other applicable provisions of law. "In addition to the criminal penalties provided, any person or persons violating the provisions of this section shall be subject to suit by the party injured, or by

his estate, in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceedings for damages or preventive or declaratory or other relief. The provisions of this section shall also be enforceable by the Attorney General in suits in the district courts concurrently with State or Territorial courts, shall have jurisdiction of all other proceedings under this section without regard to the sum or value of the matter in controversy. The term 'district courts' includes any district court of the United States or court of any Territory or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Inclusion of this language would go a long way toward correcting practices which unfairly limit participation of colored voters in elections.

In 1947, Senators Styles Bridges and Bourke B. Hickenlooper issued a report showing that campaigns to restrict voting by colored citizens in Mississippi had been highly effective. On page 21 of the report of the Special Committee To Investigate Senatorial Campaign Expenditures in 1946, there appears a list of counties in Mississippi. In Adams County, where the colored population was 16,885, only 147 were registered voters. Out of the white population of 10,344, over 3,000 were registered voters. In Washington County, where 48,831 colored persons lived, only 126 were registered while out of a total of 18,568 whites in the county, over 5,000 were registered.

In recent visits to Mississippi, I have learned that this situation has taken a turn for the worse. Through changes in election laws, trick questions, and economic pressure, the number of colored persons who are permitted to vote is sharply restricted.

When I was in Jackson, Miss., prior to the 1954 election, I heard firsthand reports on how prospective voters were intimidated. Perhaps the most impressive of these accounts came from a man who said that after he paid his poll tax he was called in by his employer. The employer ordered him to tear up the poll tax receipt and stay away from the polls on election day if he wanted to keep his job. When the man complied, the employer added as he was leaving, "You had better not tell anyone I made you do this because I don't want the FBI after me."

It is a wonderful thing to be interested in preserving the free ballot in Europe, Asia, and other places where we are now committed to the support of democratic governments. However, unless we make certain that the right to vote is protected in the United States, itself, we may discover that we have lost at home what we seek to preserve abroad. Therefore, we strongly urge that S. 636 be amended as recommended in this testimony.

We have asked for an opportunity to appear for two reasons: First, we are very much in accord with the principle of the bill, and section 305 which fixes the responsibility for literature published on behalf of candidates; and second, because we believe that an amendment to this legislation is very necessary in order that the right to vote might be properly safeguarded, particularly in Federal elections.

So far as section 305 is concerned, we point out that the race issue has come up from time to time in various States. Unfortunately, we have seen some evidence of it even in the border States.

As late as 1954, in the 1954 campaign in the First Congressional District of the State of Maryland where Mr. Miller, I presume you may remember him from the House when you were there, was running for reelection on the Republican ticket, his opponent, who was a Democrat, injected the race issue into the campaign and tried to pretend that if Mr. Miller were defeated, it would be possible to reverse the