THE DEMOCRATIC STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF MICHIGAN, Hon. THOMAS HENNINGS, Chairman, Senate Elections Subcommittee, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR HENNINGS: A newspaper account of the testimony given your committee Tuesday by Mr. John Feikens, chairman of the Republican State Central Committee, included the following: "In reply to Hennings' questions, Feikens said corporations in Michigan do not contribute to political funds." This question assumes significance because Mr. Feikens is joining with other Republicans in an attack upon contributions to politics by labor organizations and upon the activities of the labor organizations themselves in the exercise of their educational and other functions. I do not propose to go into Mr. Feikens' attack on labor organizations; they will no doubt make their own reply. But because Mr. Feikens' opinions, like those of a great many members of the Republican Party are based upon the assumption that corporations do not contribute to politics, I should like to show that this not the case. In Michigan there is a section of our statutes dealing with the subject as follows: "No officer, director, stockholder, attorney, agent or any other person, acting for any corporation *** shall pay, give, or lend *** any money belonging to such corporation to any candidate or to any political committee for the payment of any election expenses whatever." This provision is commonly accepted as preventing corporations from contributing to political candidates, parties, or campaigns. In actual fact, this prohibits only one of the many ways by which corporations make political contributions to the Republican Party. But the use of money belonging to a corporation is only one of the many ways in which corporations, through the use of their personnel, facilities, pressure, and coercion exact contributions for Republican candidates and officeholders. Let me cite a few: 1. Vendors doing business with a corporation are told by the purchasing agent that the corporation expects them to make a contribution to the Republican Party, and to forward the checks to him. 2. Executives of the corporation are "asked" by their superiors to contribute to the GOP. In one Michigan firm, the regular year-end bonuses were distributed early, during the 1954 election campaign, and it was "suggested" to those receiving the bonuses that a contribution to the Republican Party was in order. 3. Minor executives of the corporation are informed by their superiors that a contribution to the Republican Party is being made in their name. "If anybody asks you about this contribution, just say yes you made it" is the refrain. 4. Junior executive write checks to the Republican Party and then get the money back from the corporation's "petty cash" fund. 5. Office employees are called in by their superiors in the corporation and "advised" to buy and wear a special Republican contributor button; if the employee demurs, he is told that his behavior might be construed as incompatible with the personnel policies of the corporation. 6. Employees in categories thought to be friendly to Republican candidates are "encouraged" to do political work in the precincts on election day, with no loss of in wages for the day. 7. Dealers are "persuaded" and at times openly coerced by corporation officials into making contributions of money, advertising, and of services of their employees to the Republican Party. 8. Corporations directly purchase "advertising" in publications controlled directly or indirectly by the Republican Party. 9. Trade associations supported wholly or substantially by corporations make contributions of services and take part in Republican campaigns. 10. Major fund raising dinners for the GOP are freely underwritten by corporation officers. The tickets are then distributed to suppliers and dealers and their cost hidden in expense accounts, advertising budgets and as "entertainment" expense. To our best knowledge and belief this is how the Republicans raised a reported $200,000 on one fund-raising dinner in Detroit for C. E. Wilson, late of General Motors, presently in the Eisenhower Cabinet, and at that time embroiled in metaphors about unemployed people and dogs. It is generally easier to determine what unions do than it is to determine the actions of corporations. Union accounts are very much an open book, subject to scrutiny by their members, debated in conventions, and reported at some length in the press. Corporation accounts are essentially private and the practices we described above are blanketed under this cloak of privacy. not, as Mr. Feikens seems to think, indicate that they do not exist. Sincerely, This does NEIL STAEBLER, Chairman, Democratic State Central Committee. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, Hon. THOMAS C. HENNINGS, Jr., WASHINGTON BUREAU NAACP, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR HENNINGS: Thank you very much for the opportunity to be heard by your subcommittee on S. 636. In my testimony I refer to statements by Dr. A. H. McCoy, of Jackson, Miss. Dr. McCoy is also president of our Mississippi State Conference of NAACP branches. I am attaching a copy of his statement and would appreciate it if this could be included in the record as a part of my testimony. Sincerely yours, CLARENCE MITCHELL, Director, Washington Bureau. STATEMENT OF DR. A. H. McCOY, PRESIDENT, MISSISSIPPI STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES I am calling your attention to an existing condition in the State of Mississippi which is unparalleled any place in the world. It is a state of terror caused by the unbridled action of White Citizens' Councils. Even though the Citizens' Councils boast of covering 24 counties in the State, Belzoni, Miss., at present holds the spotlight. For several months white men reported to be members of the Citizens' Councils have systematically intimidated Negro citizens who having paid their poll taxes and registered were told to have their names stricken from the county's voting rolls. Ninety-two refused to remove their names, including one Rev. George W. Lee. About 4 weeks ago, a wave of car windshield breaking began. These cars are owned by Negroes. Although this property destruction continued for 2 weeks, no arrests were made. The Elk's Rest was broken into and after much property destruction a note was left saying, "this is what will happen to Negroes who try to vote." Signed, "Citizens' Councils." About midnight, May 7, 1955, Rev. G. W. Lee was driving along Church Street in Belzoni, Miss., when, according to witnesses, 3 white men in a convertible car shot 3 times and drove off. Reverend Lee lost control of his car and crashed into a house. He was rushed to a hospital but died on the way. I assisted the coroner in a post-mortem examination, and this is what the examination revealed. On the left side of the face there appeared an irregular round opening, 1 inch in diameter at a point 11⁄2 inches below and in front of the tragus of the ear, and torn in a manner which made the opening continuous with the mouth. The periphery gave the appearance of powder burns. The mandible (lower jaw) was shattered into multiple pieces, too small to be reassembled, from the tempomandibular articulation to the upper third of the ramus on the opposite side. There were three 1⁄2-inch openings connecting the inside of the mouth with the outside of the neck on the opposite side. An opening near the medium line at the posterior border of the hard palate gave the appearance of having been penetrated by a buckshot, which probably lodged at the base of the brain. In the region of the carotid artery and jugular vein, all soft tissues gave the appearance of having gone through a hamburger grinder. Six irregular shaped pieces of lead resembling buck shots were found in the region of the jugular vein and carotid artery. A few fragments were found below the tongue. Judging from the questions raised at the inquest, one could easily suspect whitewash. Here are a few: "A scantling could have punched him in the jaw and killed him when he crashed into the house." "He could have died from shock." "The lead could be filling material from his teeth." "The noise which sounded like a gun could have been three tire blowouts." When told that dentists did not use lead in teeth, it was stated that, "we will have to find the dentist who filled his teeth to see if he used lead, if it is proved that this is lead." Here are the headlines in the local papers: "Freak' Death Probe Is Seen In Delta City"-State Times. "Negro Leader Dies In Odd Accident"-The Clarion-Ledger. "Coroner's Ruling Pending In Death of Negro Leader"-Jackson Daily News. The Negro in Mississippi could expect nothing in the way of protection under the law even before the advent of the Citizens' Councils. The Governor on occasion suggested that colored people who did not like the way they were treated leave the State. EXHIBIT 4 EDITORIALS RELATIVE TO S. 636 [From America-National Catholic Weekly Review, April 30, 1955] TO MAKE UNITED STATES ELECTIONS MORE HONEST Isn't it about time that the American people snap out of their complacency about the assumed superiority of all our democratic processes of Government? Just take the question of our electoral system. We pooh-pooh what we regard as the completely rigged Soviet electoral system. Yet Rev. Georges Bissonnette, A. A., after 2 years in Moscow, disclosed in his widely snydicated articles on Russia that if Soviet final elections are a farce, nominations are not equally So. In his article published in the New York Times for March 28 Father Bissonnette revealed that "there seems to be a certain amount of popular participation" (just how much is hard to determine) in the villages and factory caucuses which select the one-party list of candidates-who are always elected, of course. The way the Soviets sell their one-party electoral system to the Russian people is no great mystery. Rev. Maurice Meyers, S. J., explained it in this Review for June 17, 1950. They simply pull together all the evils of our American election system, exaggerate them, suppress all its advantages and then contrast this rather dismal description with an idealized version of the Soviet model. It is a persuasive trick. To strengthen the case for American democracy before a highly critical world we have a duty to keep weeding out the evils which continually crop up in any system of popular elections. THE HENNINGS BILL This is the purpose of S. 636, introduced by Senator Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., of Missouri. It would remedy the following serious loopholes in Federal corrupt-practices legislation governing Federal elections. They presently fail to (1) cover primary elections, conventions and caucuses; (2) require any but national party committees to report expenditures; or (3) provide for effective enforcement of spending limits and other prohibitions. Present spending limits are so outdated as to invite widespread evasions. S. 636 by a flexible formula would raise the ceiling (imposed in 1940) of $3 million on each national party committee to about $12 million (at 20 cents per vote for President). With TV and radio costs skyrocketing, this is a reasonable, enforceable limit. It has been exceeded in the past through the evasive device of multiplying political committees and letting individual donors and members of the same family chip in up to the $5,000 limit to as many such groups as they wanted. We favor this and other provisions of the Hennings bill, amended in any ways deemed advisable, as promising more truly democratic elections in the world's showcase of free government. The experience of the States shows how hard it is to devise and enforce effective regulation of elections. Still, the Senate's Committee on Rules and Administration could put tighter regulations to good use in its investigations. We may sometime come to greater Federal subsidy of election costs, as President "Teddy" Roosevelt advocated as long ago as 1907. Since then State and local primaries, for example, have become matters of public, rather than party, expense. [From the Wilmington (Del.), Journal-Every Evening of April 13, 1955] HIGH COST OF POLITICS Although the national chairmen of our two major political parties are not often in agreement, they were as one yesterday in urging support of a Senate bill to lift the ceiling on permissible campaign expenditures. The present limit, as authorized by the election statutes, is $3 million. Paul H. Butler, Democratic chairman, would raise it to at least $6 million; and Republican Chairman Hall, while declining to name an exact figure, denounced the restriction now in effect as "outmoded and unrealistic." There are at least two good reasons for doing something about this matter. In the first place, the cost of campaigning has risen sharply, not only because of the larger number of voters who have to be reached but because a more intense competition now demands the use of expensive television and of airplane travel. In the second place, it is pretty well accepted as fact that the law as written is subject to easy evasion. All that needs to be done to exceed the legal limitand both parties have been doing it—is to form local and temporary committees which can spend as much money as they want without being called to account. And if they are called to account, there is no way of determining whether their figures are correct. The bill which is before the Senate would not only give the national parties more latitude but would close some of the loopholes which now encourage abuses. In the interest of something like honesty in electioneering, the measure should receive favorable attention. [From the Richmond (Va.) Times Dispatch of April 12, 1955] PLUGGING ELECTION LAW LOOPHOLES Democratic Senator Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., of Missouri, has set a laudable goal in trying to close loopholes in Federal laws covering congressional campaign spending. He's chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, which opens hearings today on his proposed Federal Elections Act of 1955. Candidates for the House and Senate are required to file expenditure reports with the Clerks of their respective Houses. These reports showed that the 1954 campaigns cost $13,700,000, as compared with $10,900,000 in the last previous midterm election year, 1950. But the catch is that political committees working solely within one State don't have to file with Congress (though some States do require such reports). The costliest contest last year (on the basis of the Federal reports) was that between Democrat Richard L. Neuberger and Republican Guy Cordon for an Oregon senatorial seat. The reports to Congress showed that Neuberber (who won) and three committees working for him spent approximately $84,000 and that Cordon himself spent nothing. But reports filed with Oregon's secretary of state showed additional expenditures of about $3,000 for Neuberger and of $141,000 for Cordon. Thus that one senatorial race cost at least $228,000. At the other extreme, 4 southern Senators reported no campaign expenses, and 4 others reported $100 or less. Actually, the real spending in these contests was in the primaries and Federal law doesn't require such reports. Senator Hennings proposes that all expenditures, including those made by groups working solely within one State, be reported, and also that primaries be brought under the law. Another interesting proposal by Senator Hennings is that no committee be permitted to operate for a candidate without the candidate's written authorization. While these changes would make it more difficult for spending to exceed limits set by law without detection, the blow would be softened by upping the limits. It is proposed that a candidate could spend 10 cents for each vote cast for the office in the most recent election, whereas the present figure is 3 cents. In no case could a senatorial candidate spend more than $250,000 or a House candidate more than $25,000. Present limits (which are widely violated and which should be increased) are $25,000 and $5,000. The laws covering campaign spending and reporting should be made as strong as possible. However, the problem is so complex, and political ingenuity reaches such heights at times, that even the most carefully written statutes are not free of loopholes. 61589-55-21 [From the Boston Daily Globe of April 16, 1955] Americans have yet to devise a workable method of controlling campaign expenditures. It is known that radio and television are making campaigns increasingly costly, but it also is obvious that possession of a large fund gives a candidate an unfair advantage, against which poorer aspirants and causes find it difficult to compete. Corrupt practices acts are usually unduly strict and absurdly easy to evade. A proposal of Senator Hennings, which is being considered by his committee in Washington, seeks to face the actual situation with a realistic approach. It would raise from $3 million to $12 million the limit that could be spent by party national committees. It also would place a ceiling on subsidiary committees supporting candidates for Federal office, and would include primaries as well as election contests. In addition, the measure would provide penalties. This looks like the most promising effort in years to meet a problem that is chronic and disturbing. [From the Denver Post of April 26, 1955] SPENDING FREE-FOR-ALL Federal laws which are supposed to limit campaign expenditures in Congressional elections are "inadequate and antediluvian," according to Senator Thomas C. Hennings, Jr. (Democrat) of Missouri. He says they are inadequate because they do not require full disclosure of all spending. And they are obsolete because they set unrealistic ceilings on what candidates and parties may spend. Present laws do not apply to campaign spending in primary elections. The limit on a Senate race is $10,000 or the amount obtained by multiplying by 3 cents the total number of votes cast for that office in the last general election, but not more than $25,000. On a race for the House, it is $2,500 or the sum obtained by the 3-cent formula, but not more than $5,000. As these expenditure limits do not apply to the spending of political committees, other than national party committees and committees active in two or more States, they are virtually meaningless. Expenditure reports filed with Congress by the various candidates actually show only part, and sometimes a very small part, of the total actually spent in their behalf. For example, consider the 1954 Senatorial election in Oregon. Dick Neuberger (Democrat), who was elected reported $84,004.13 spent by himself and 3 committees which supported him. Senator Guy Cordon (Republican) reported that he spent nothing but that the "Cordon for United States Senator committee" filed a report of its expenditures in Oregon as required by State law. Congressional Quarterly, after checking with the Oregon secretary of state, found that 30 committees and 4 individuals spent $141,264.01 in Cordon's behalf, and that Neuberger's total from 10 committees and 4 individuals was $87,652.64. In other words, the Oregon senatorial race cost about $228,000. That was nearly double the total reported to Congress for any Senate race. The Senate Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, which Hennings heads, has started hearings on a bill he introduced to reform the campaign expenditures laws. His measure would cover primary as well as general election campaign spending. It would jump the present $3 million limit on national party political committee spending to $12 million. It would boost the senatorial limit to $250,000, but that of House candidates to $25,000. And it would include in these limits all spending by all committees in behalf of any candidate. Now that Members of Congress have increased their own pay by $7,500 a year, competition for House and Senate seats is likely to be keener. But attempting to control the campaign spending of groups which are formed to support various candidates without their consent or approval is easier said than done. The appetite for public office is too keen and the stakes involved are too high to expect statutory disciplines to have much restraining effect on candidates and others who anticipate protection or profit from their man's victory. |