where in 1952 a man by the name of Schneider from Missouri filed in the New Hampshire and Oregon primaries as a Republican because he felt that both Senator Taft and General Eisenhower were leftwing. He received 230 votes in the New Hampshire primary. Evidently, he never found out how many votes he got in Oregon, the only other State he was interested in, but he insisted to the CBS and Federal Communications Commission that, as a potential Republican candidate, he was entitled to time under section 315, and the result was that the FCC ruled that he was entitled to this time and I assume that CBS and perhaps other networks had to give in and allow him to present his views to the people.

I find, also, in addition to that, that there were the following parties legally represented in the 1952 election in addition to the Republican and Democratic Parties. There was the American Rally, Christian Nationalist Party, the Church of God Bible, the Constitution Party, the Greenback Party, the Poor Man's Party.

Senator GORE. Wait a minute. With all of this talk about leaving the syllable off of the name of one party, I think I belong to that party, don't you?

Senator MANSFIELD. Then, in addition there was the Progressive Party, the Prohibition Party, the Republamerican Party, the Socialist Labor Party, Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party, Spiritualist Party, Vegetarian Party, and the Washington Peace Party.

Now, am I correct in assuming that all the candidates of these parties, and I must admit in all honesty that I have only heard of a very few of them until just today, were all of the candidates of these parties entitled under section 315 to ask time from ABC, CBS, NBC, and NBS?

Mr. JAHNCKE. Senator Mansfield, section 315 doesn't entitle them to time. It entitles them to equal opportunity. If we give time to the major parties, they have the legal right to equal time, equal opportunity.

Senator MANSFIELD. All 16 in addition to the 2 major parties have that right?

Mr. JAHNCKE. I, too, am not an expert in this field, sir. I am not familiar with these parties, but let's assume they all had a legally qualified candidate for the Presidency, they would all be entitled to the same equal facilities.

Senator MANSFIELD. That may mean a legally qualified candidate for the Presidency in just one State?

Mr. JAHNCKE. Yes, sir, that is my understanding of the definition of legally qualified, if you can get on the ballot in one State.

Senator MANSFIELD. Well, there is such a thing as equality of opportunity, but this seems to be drawing the line pretty fine. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that this committee would seriously go into the section 315 and be prepared to make recommendations to ameliorate the present difficulty to the proper committee, the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over this particular function of Government. I understand that you Mr, Jahncke, and the other radio and TV people who appeared before us today have also appeared before in connection with this particular subject.

Mr. JAHNCKE. No, sir; Mr. Kintner and I have both appeared before the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee earlier this year, but not on the subject of section 315, sir.

This is on the basic problem of television facilities and allocations, and the problem of VHF versus UHF broadcasting stations, and the general problems of the television industry.

This particular point was raised as I understand it by Senator Magnuson, but not as part of that hearing record, and he merely invited any comments from the network.

Senator MANSFIELD. I see. Did representatives of the ABC appear before this committee under the chairmanship of Senator Hennings in 1955 ?

Mr. JAHNCKE. I don't know, sir, but I can find out.

Senator MANSFIELD. Well, it is immaterial.

Mr. JAHNCKE. Mr. McKenna is in the room and he can tell me if you will let me turn around. No, sir, we did not. The only statement we have made is the one before the House Subcommittee on Transportation and Communications, last February.

Senator MANSFIELD. But you have made a pretty vigorous statement today in re section 315.

Mr. JAHNCKE. Yes, sir.

Senator MANSFIELD. And that represents the views of the ABC and in general seems to be in accord with the testimony given before this committee today by the representatives of the CBS and the NBC. Mr. JAHNCKE. I can't speak for their testimony, sir. Senator MANSFIELD. Well, in general.

Mr. JAHNCKE. We don't have a specific recommendation to make because we are not quite sure how the problem should be solved. You can make arguments, very cogent arguments, on the various points of view here.

Senator MANSFIELD. Mr. Jahncke, I don't believe the other representatives had too much in the way of specific recommendations to make either, but they all made it a point to point up the inequities which seem to exist in this particular section at the present time and which I think, Mr. Chairman, is worthy of the most serious consideration of this committee.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Senator GORE. Mr. Jahncke, the committee wishes to thank you for your cooperation. You have been an able witness and a very pleasant witness, and I hope the few exchanges between us that may have appeared to be a little bit sharp were not unpleasant to you.

Mr. JAHNCKE. Not at all, sir. We want to be helpful in every way

we can.

Senator GORE. The committee appreciates your cooperation and we will look forward to cooperating with you further.

Thank you, sir.

The next and last witness for today is Mr. Harold E. Fellows, president of the National Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters. Do you swear that the evidence given before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. FELLOWs. I do.

TESTIMONY OF HAROLD E. FELLOWS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RADIO & TELEVISION BROADCASTERS, ACCOMPANIED BY VINCENT T. WASILEWSKI

Mr. FELLOWS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Harold E. Fellows. I am president and chairman of the board of directors of the National Association of Radio & Television Broadcasters, 1771 N Street NW., Washington, D. C.

A majority of the licensees of the Nation's radio and television broadcasters are members of our association. Also, the national radio and television networks are members.

For purposes of background, I have been the chief executive officer of NARTB for 5 years. Prior to joining the association, I was the general manager of station WEEI in Boston for 15 years. Needless to say, I have been dealing with political broadcasting problems, in one form or another, during all those years.

Our association is pleased to cooperate with your subcommittee in its study of political practices, campaign contributions, and expenditures during the course of the 1956 presidential and senatorial campaigns. Mr. Chairman, in your letter of August 31, inviting me to appear before this group, you indicated that the subcommittee desired

information with respect to the amount of political broadcast time for which contracts have already been made, the amount of free time available for political broadcasts, time charges, and direct and indirect costs.

I am sorry, but we do not have that information at the association. We believe, however, that a survey of the broadcasting industry could be made, requesting information along this line, and we hereby offer our cooperation in the conduct of such a survey.

Senator GORE. That is very helpful. It brings the committee to the point of the necessity of contacting individual stations.

Mr. FELLOWS. That is right.

Senator GORE. Cause to go on a national broadcast

Mr. FELLOWs. On a network broadcast the information is in one spot.

Senator GORE. There may be many contracts on a statewide basis or a strictly local basis or even on a multistate or a regional basis? Mr. FELLOWS. Right.

Senator GORE. The committee appreciates your offer of cooperation in that regard.

Mr. FELLOWS. We elaborate a little bit here in that line, in that very vein.

In 1952, this subcommittee conducted a survey of expenditures for radio and television in the 1952 national general elections. This questionnaire was sent to all radio and television stations on October 30, 1952, with a request that it be completed and returned to the subcommittee by November 24, 1952. Responses were received from 100 percent of the television stations and 83.5 percent of the radio stations of the country. The questionnaire sought information on the aggregate amount received by stations and networks for political broadcasts from candidates, and their campaign committees, for national elective offices. The total amounted to $6,062,378.05.

If the subcommittee contemplates another survey of this nature, the association will be happy to advise with the staff members in the fram

ing of a questionnaire. In 1952, the association was in receipt of so many inquiries seeking clarification of the questionnaire that it was necessary for it to send an explanatory statement on the matter to all radio and television stations. We believe that it would be somewhat premature to send such a questionnaire at the present time, because I am confident that most political broadcasting schedules, on the local level, have not been completely-nor even nearly-finalized.

Senator GORE. Before you leave the previous subject, when do you think would be the appropriate time?

Mr. FELLOWS. You started in 1952. The original request went out as I recall on October 30. I certainly think it should be earlier than that. Not later I would say than October 1 perhaps. About October 1 I think would do it, sir. Then the stations would be on the alert and would be gathering their information.

Senator GORE. What would you think of the possibility-I started to say suggestion-what would you think of the idea of sending letters to the stations almost immediately?

Mr. FELLOWS. Telling them that the committee is going to do this, therefore getting them on their guard. I think it would be excellent, Senator.

Senator GORE. I have thought of perhaps advising them that we would like the information as of September 31 or October 1.

Mr. FELLOWS. I don't think you can get it, Mr. Chairman. A great much-much of my experience as reflected in my qualifying statement here, has been at the so-called community or local level, and much of the time that is purchased for broadcasting by political candidates, it all piles up in the last 2 or 3 weeks. You cannot anticipate how much time you are going to have to make available as the campaigns go on, and I doubt that almost any station in the country could even give you a very good idea prior to the last week or two of the campaign. In some cases, it would be right up to the end of the campaign. I think you would be doing a disservice to yourself if you attempted to get such material before the conclusion of the campaigns.

Senator GORE. I don't know that it would actually be a disservice. Mr. FELLOWS. I meant by that, sir, a disservice, no reflection on the fact whether the station would or would not respond or reply. I don't think you can ask them to do anything until then. I don't think they can possibly sit down. I don't know, if you want to urge them they could probably give you some estimates. I don't think they would if you were asking for particular truth, but I don't think you would gain anything.

Senator GORE. I will ask the staff to confer with you in this regard. The committee appreciates your suggestion. Would you give an estimate to the committe as to the comparison of money spent for broadcasting on political broadcasts for Federal election campaigns, that is, election campaigns for the United States Congress, the United States Senate, and the presidential campaign between the network programs on the one hand and the aggregate of such contracts on the part of local stations on the other?

Mr. FELLOWS. I think I recall that the $6 million figure which appeared in the 1952 survey was matched by a figure somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 million at the local regional level. Do you recall, Vince?

We had not statistical figures on it, but I still think that it was in the neighborhood of from one-third to one-half the amount spent on the Federal. The rest of it was I think. Now you have here the figure of $6 million and you are asking-I am sorry-how much of that was over the networks and how much was purchased other than at the network level?

Senator GORE. I am asking the comparative relationship between the amount of money spent on Federal election campaigns for political time on radio and TV on the part of local stations on the one hand, and the contracts with the networks on the other.

Mr. FELLOWS. I think you have it in your files, sir, but my recollection is that approximate one-third of it was spent at the so-called local level, one-third of the $6 million, I think, but we will certainly attempt to establish that and give it back to the committee. I think you have it. What we have here has no breakdown on that, but I do think it is in your records, sir, but we will attempt to find out what we have in our records and see to it that counsel is told.

You also ask that I comment on "political broadcasting policy, procedures, and related matters." While I do not propose to take your time today with a detailed and fully documented presentation, I would like to use this opportunity to state that most American broadcasters feel that section 315 of the Communications Act, which governs broadcasting by political candidates, serves no useful purpose and, in fact, does a disservice to the American people.

In this regard, I believe that it would be most illuminating to this subcommittee to have a copy of the publication of the association entitled "A Political Broadcast Catechism." This document contains the laws and regulations governing political broadcasts and is set up in question and answer form in order to provide the greatest possible assistance to radio and television stations in interpreting section 315. When enacted, this section appeared to be a relatively simple provision of law but, with changing times and problems, there has resulted a highly complex group of rules and regulations, interpretations, and policy statements applicable to the handling of political broadcasting. As you may know, the essence of this section is that the broadcaster, once he has made time available to one candidate, assumes the obligation to make equal time available to all opponents of that candidate. This principle, on its surface, sounds fair and easy to apply. I am convinced, however, that it operates to the detriment of the public.

Section 315 places broadcasters in a legal straitjacket. Once a broadcaster makes time available to a political candidate, he opens up a Pandora's box of trouble. The easy solution, of course, would be to decide not to do any political broadcasting which the present law permits.

This obviously is not consonant with our view of the industry's public-service obligations. However, I think it is undisputed that section 315 does prevent the public from receiving full coverage of the news, forum, and panel shows involving candidates, and all the campaign messages of many candidates of the major political parties. It does this by its requirement that all bona fide candidates for a particular public office must be granted equal time in the use of a station's facilities. This means that, if there are two leading candidates for a particular office, a broadcaster cannot limit the time