Facts, the news organ of Local 600, UAW-CIO, February 26, 1955, page 4:

At a meeting at Solidarity House on Thursday, February 3, 1955, CIO local officers unanimously agreed on a budget presented by the Wayne CIO Council to cover a tricounty area for the coming spring elections of February 21, 1955, and April 4, 1955, and it was also agreed that the elections were of such importance that the local unions contribute 15 cents per member based on the month of December 1954 to help raise the needed campaign budget.

In connection with the preceding paragraph, approval is sought for the following action of the executive board of February 8, 1955:

1. That local 600 contribute to the Wayne Council CIO PAC 15 cents per member based on December 1954 membership.

2. That the General Council PAC Committee be brought out on lost time to work on the primary spring election for a period from Tuesday, February 15, 1955, through Monday, February 21, 1955, and to be paid 1 week's salary and expenses flat.

I should point out that as a result of this 15 cents assessment by the unions, there was raised in Wayne County alone approximately $750,000 as reported by the Detroit newspapers.

In summary, then, we have a pattern in Michigan where tremendous sums of money raised for the legitimate purposes of unions are being used for support of one political party. Further, those sums are required and compelled to be paid by rank-and-file workers regardless of their political views. This is evil and totalitarian, regardless of what political party such funds support.

I, therefore, suggest that this committee examine into the ways and means in which present Federal legislation can be strengthened to prevent this evil whether it exists on the part of labor organizations or corporations or any other groups of any kind.

I wish also to thank this committee for their patience in listening to this massive data. I hope that the evidence presented here will be of some assistance in this complex field.

Senator HENNINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Feikens. We appreciate your coming here. We appreciate your having taken the trouble to prepare this statement and present it to us here this morning.

That commendation, I must say, is limited, however, only to your having appeared and given your statement and does not undertake to necessarily suggest that the Chair accepts all of the controversial statements and assertions made in your statement. Nor do I disavow them. Have you any questions?

The Senate goes into session at 12 o'clock, Mr. Feikens, and I am afraid we are going to have to be rather brief with you unless we have a unanimous-consent agreement today.

Senator CURTIS. In view of the lateness of the hour, I am not going to ask a lot of questions. I might just ask this: Is there anything, any exhibit that you referred to by reference that you wanted to offer to the reporter?

Mr. FEIKENS. Yes; may I offer them in bulk? Each one of the items referred to in my statement is

Senator HENNINGS. You have some books there and

Mr. FEIKENS. Books and pamphlets.

Senator HENNINGS. The committee will be glad to receive them. The exhibits are made a part of the record.

Mr. FEIKENS. Reference is made to the page-if you wish, I cam have the page photostated.

Senator HENNINGS. We will accept all that you have there, Mr. Feikens, and make them exhibits, not to be printed in full in the record but attached to and made a part of the record.

Mr. FEIKENS. I take it that it is the wish of the committee that you have these exhibits; that is why I brought them in.

Senator CURTIS. Then the staff can check back on anything that you referred to or any other witness appearing might do that.

Senator HENNINGS. Mr. Feikens, may I ask whether you agree with anything in S. 636? You have said that we were wide of the mark and were not getting at the heart of the matter. What do you think of some of the things that we have suggested?

Mr. FEIKENS. I would like to see, Senator Hennings, a ceiling put on the contributions.

Senator HENNINGS. You think that ceiling is about right?

Mr. FEIKENS. I think it is adequate. I would like also to say that I think that the intent to require better reporting is good. But the reason that I spent so much time in telling you about the situation in Michigan is to point out that whether you talk about particularized reporting or whether you talk about putting a ceiling on contributions, you are still not doing anything as regards the very vital function of political freedom.

Senator HENNINGS. That, I think, you made very clear and I am‍ sure that the committee will take your suggestion seriously.

Have you any specific suggestions as to what would or what could be said by way of legislation relating to these matters?

Mr. FEIKENS. Well, specifically, Senator, I would like to see the Federal law strengthened along the lines that I have suggested. I have no specific amendment to make other than to refer to the present Michigan bill, a copy of which is in this mass of data to prevent this thing from continuing.

Let me be more specific. We have a Federal Corrupt Practices Act. The act says that no labor union may contribute. It is quite categorical. That act has been interpreted by the Federal court in at least two cases that I know of.

Senator HENNINGS. That's right.

Mr. FEIKENS. It seems to me that the intent of the Congress still has not been made clear enough to prevent the sort of a situation that we now find in Michigan. It is toward that channel that I direct your attention.

Senator HENNINGS. Thank you, Mr. Feikens.

Do you believe that any of the corporations in Michigan contribute directly or indirectly?

Mr. FEIKENS. The corporations?

Senator HENNINGS. To your party?

Mr. FEIKENS. The corporations directly do not contribute. You constantly hear, Senator, the charges, and I might say that the charge has become more frequent

Senator HENNINGS. I make no charge. I am asking a question.

Mr. FEIKENS. Not from you. I say you constantly hear the charge in Michigan now from our opponents, particularly since we have gotten into this thing, that, well, the corporations are doing the same thing.

Now, I can say to you honestly that I know of no instance personally where anyone was compelled to contribute to the Republican Party to

hold to his job, or to be certain, let's say, as the current vogue has it, that auto dealers must contribute to the Republican Party. I know of no such instance.

Senator HENNINGS. Is that a story? Is that in Michigan?

Mr. FEIKENS. That is a story. I know of no such instance. But if that is so, I would be just as opposed to having that kind of a thing go on as I am opposed to this kind of a thing. I make no brief as between corporations or labor unions.

Senator HENNINGS. I assume, then, that what-excuse me.

What is our last conclusion as to Senator McNamara's office? Are they going to be given a copy of this?

Mr. DUFFY. They will be given a copy of the statement.

Senator HENNINGS. And later be given an opportunity to appear if they so desire.

Senator CURTIS. I think that is right. Let him have a little time to think it over.

Senator HENNINGS. Thank you, then, Mr. Feikens.

Mr. FEIKENS. Thank you, Senator Hennings, for your courtesy. (Whereupon, at 11:55 a. m., the hearing was adjourned.)

61589-55-17

FEDERAL ELECTIONS ACT OF 1955

THURSDAY, MAY 19, 1955

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS OF THE
COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION,

Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a. m., in room 104-B Senate Office Building, Senator Carl T. Curtis presiding. Present: Senator Curtis.

Also present: James H. Duffy, counsel to the subcommittee; John Dempsey, consultant to the subcommittee; and Langdon C. West, administrative assistant to Senator Hennings.

Senator CURTIS. The committee will come to order, on further consideration of S. 636, a bill to revise the Federal election laws. The witness is Senator Dirksen of Illinois. Senator Dirksen, you may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF HON. EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Chairman, I came in to raise some questions on Senate 636, based on practical experience and on the experiences as chairman of the senatorial campaign committee for a period of 4 years.

I note in section 102, subsection (1), that the act would apply to all elections, including a convention of a political party or a caucus held for the purpose of nominating candidates.

A national convention, of course, does its business through party delegates. I presume this could apply where you have a primary where you select your delegates by districts to attend a national convention. You do, however, have a State where some delegates at large are selected by the State convention of the party, but that is not its primary function.

I think, now, about the State convention which is held under the law of the State of Illinois. Among other things, it selects trustees for the University of Illinois, and its primary function is the preparation of a State platform. That is the reason we usually meet. But as an added function, of course, where the national committee apportions delegates at large on the basis of what the vote may have been in the last general election, so many of our delegates at large are then selected at the State convention.

I cannot imagine, of course, that this act would apply. If it did not, then you would have some of your delegates come within the purview of your act. You would have other delegates who would not be touched by the act.