might just as well get out and go somewhere else. The officials of the State have also organized

Senator HENNINGS. Many of them have gotten out and gone somewhere else.

Mr. MITCHELL. There are still a whole lot of them down there. I think it is true that in cities like Chicago, and St. Louis, and other places, the Negro migration has been very heavy from the State of Mississippi. But it is still a fact that the Negro population is very close to the number of white people in the State of Mississippi. Senator HENNINGS. Is that not true in Carolina?

Mr. MITCHELL. That is right. There are many counties in South Carolina where the Negro population outnumbers the white. Senator HENNINGS. And in Georgia.

Mr. MITCHELL. A large number of colored people in the State of Georgia but the State of Georgia

Senator HENNINGS. The so-called Cotton Black Belt where the cotton land extended through the counties of Georgia, came down from Carolina and on through. There you find from all the surveys a very heavily populated Negro section. You have seen the so-called old Black Belt on maps, have you not?

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, indeed. I might say it is a point of historical significance that those colored people who are down there did not go down on any excursion ticket because somebody took them to do the work in the cotton fields in the days of slavery and now that slavery has been abolished, the least that could be done is to see that they get the right to participate.

Senator HENNINGS. Strangely enough, the Black Belt does not mean black as to race; it meant black as to land.

Mr. MITCHELL. I think that is correct.

Senator HENNINGS. For that reason, we had the largest number of Negroes in slavery in this region which extended-it missed or there was very little of it in North Carolina, relatively-it came down from Virginia and skirted and went down through South Carolina and Georgia and then over through Mississippi.

Mr. MITCHELL. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Curtis, I would just like to end with this note: It is a wonderful thing to see what our Government has done in Asia and in Europe on the matter of preserving democracy against the great tides of communism. We have, I believe, undergirded and supported democracy in Japan; some of the things that have happened in the recent German election show how effectively we have operated in Europe. But it will not be possible to preserve democracy as we know it if all of our safeguards are thrown around people in foreign lands and we permit the virus that has infected our election system in some parts of our country to go unchallenged and it is our opinion that the addition of this amendment which we have offered would go a long way toward safeguarding free elections in this country and we certainly hope that this committee will make it a part of the bill.

Senator HENNINGS. Does that complete your statement, Mr. Mitchell?

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir.

Senator HENNINGS. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you very much for your most constructive suggestions and your carefully prepared and thoughtful statement.

You may have some questions?

Senator CURTIS. No, I think not. He has covered it pretty well. Senator HENNINGS. It is certainly true, Mr. Mitchell, that if we could ever have afforded the luxury, as some might think it, of race prejudice, the day has come when we cannot afford it in this country and the time, if it ever existed, when we could afford to allow some citizens to vote and restrain others from so doing, that time has passed. Those are the antedeluvian days in terms of the atomic age, and I assure you that this committee is going to give the most careful consideration to all of your suggestions and the Chair individually is much in sympathy with all of the objectives which you have suggested; we hope we can find some way to work some of them out, presenting our legislation ultimately to the full committee and to the Senate.

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you very much.

Senator HENNINGS. Has counsel some questions to ask of Mr. Mitchell?

Mr. DUFFY. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator HENNINGS. Mr. Dempsey?

Mr. DEMPSEY. Nothing, sir.

Senator HENNINGS. Thank you very much, sir.

Our next witness is Mr. John Feikens, who is chairman of the Republican State Central Committee of Michigan. We are very glad to have you with us this morning, Mr. Feikens.

Mr. FEIKENS. Thank you.

Senator HENNINGS. You may proceed, sir, in your own fashion, either reading from a prepared statement, if you have one, or reading and departing from it, as you like.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN FEIKENS, CHAIRMAN, REPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. FEIKENS. I may state for the record that my name is John Feikens, my office address is 2146 Penobscot Building, Detroit, Mich. My residence address is 1381 Grayton Road, Grosse Point Park, Mich.

I regard it a privilege to appear before this committee to testify on S. 636. The subject matter is especially interesting to me in my capacity as chairman of the Republican State Central Committee of Michigan.

By way of introduction, I am not unmindful of the provisions of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act to which reference will be made hereinafter. I would like to point out that in Michigan we presently have a law which provides that—

No officer, director, stockholder, attorney, agent, or any other person acting for any corporation or joint stock company, whether incorporated under the laws of this or any other State or any foreign country, except corporations formed for political purposes, shall pay, give or lend, or authorize to be paid, given or lent, anv money belonging to such corporation to any candidate or to any political committee for the payment of any election expenses whatever.

I would like to say that while I agree with the intent of this bill, S. 636, to seek better reporting methods, I do not believe that the problem is attacked head on either on a national level or on a State level such as in Michigan, by simply providing for more particularized reporting of campaign expenditures.

Present laws in the State of Michigan already provide that every candidate and every treasurer of a political committee shall file reports in the office of the county clerk of the county in which such candidate or treasurer resides within a specified number of days after each election, said report to give in detail every item of money received and disbursed. A political committee is defined as every combination of two or more persons who shall aid or promote the success or defeat of a candidate or a political party or principle or meas

ure.

While this has been the law for a number of years, many political committees recently operating in the State of Michigan as I will hereinafter refer to them have not complied with this law, even though I have repeatedly sought aid from the attorney general of Michigan for its enforcement.

Senator HENNINGS. May I ask you a question at that point please, sir?

Is there a penal provision?

Mr. FEIKENS. Yes.

Senator HENNINGS. Do you know what that is?

Mr. FEIKENS. I have the election code here.

Senator HENNINGS. Does it suggest forfeiture of office or imprisonment or fine?

Mr. FEIKENS. I might have that checked while I continue with my

statement.

Senator HENNINGS. Don't let me interrupt you further.

Mr. FEIKENS. We will go back and pick that up.

I might also state that while I am interested in your intent to limit the amount of campaign expenditures, it seems to me that the approach which is taken in the proposed bill again does not address itself to the heart of the matter.

In delineating my argument I will, of course, constantly refer to the situation as I find it to exist in Michigan, and I want to say at the outset that my remarks are limited to my knowledge of conditions in my own State. I believe it necessary to say that I want no privilege for expenditures by corporations. I believe that our present laws ought to be strengthened further in this regard and they ought also to be broadened so as to include all special interest groups, any of which compel contributions to political parties, or to candidates as a condition of employment or as a matter of doing business, either in the pursuit of a profession or in the exchange of goods and services for value.

In that connection, I wish to call the committee's attention to legislation presently before the Michigan Legislature, already approved by the senate and now pending before the house. This proposed senate bill 1401, I believe, goes to the heart of the matter much more directly than does United States Senate bill 636, for it provides that—

no person in the employ of another nor a person seeking employment shall be required to support financially or otherwise any candidate or political committee as a condition of employment

and that

no organization which any person in the employ of another is required as a condition of employment to join, remain in, or support financially or otherwise, shall offer or spend any money or thing or service of value in support or opposition of any candidate, political committee, or political party.

61589-55-16

Senator HENNINGS. Mr. Feikens, may I interrupt you if you will forgive me, at that point. To what conditions do you have specific reference?

Mr. FEIKENS. Those will be delineated in my statement.

Senator HENNINGS. Please go ahead, sir.

Proposed amendments to this Michigan bill which we support would include all activities involved in the exchange of goods or services for value as coming within the prohibition of the law.

It is my firm belief that no person, whether he works for a corporation or whether he is engaged in business relationships with it, or whether he is an employee, ought to be compelled to contribute to a political party. Some of the antagonists of our proposed Michigan legislation argue that the bill is aimed at labor unions. Let me categorically state that my position is not directed against labor unions. as such nor is that the position of the Republican Party in Michigan. We are proud to be sponsors in Michigan of the most liberalized unemployment compensation and workmen's compensation laws in the United States. As a party, we are opposed to any right-to-work legislation. We are interested in minimum wage legislation and we have as a party repeatedly voiced our position in favor of fair employment practices legislation.

But we do believe that the present election system in Michigan, both as it affects candidates running for Federal office as well as State office, is such that greater restrictive controls are necessary and I repeat again that I refer to the proposed legislation in Michigan only because I think it goes far more directly to the heart of the problem than does the legislation before this committee. Many of its provisions could be made applicable to the areas covered by the Federal statutes. In describing the election system in my State, I must point out that we are running into totalitarianism on the part of certain groups. support of this statement I charge and can prove that the political bosses of the labor organizations in our State are compelling individuals as a condition of their employment to contribute to the Democrat Party.

In

I want this committee to understand that though much of this statement is given over to discussing involuntary support to a political party by labor unions through dues collected that I recognize the very real possibility that large business institutions may inferentially or by implication make political contributions a condition of good business relations. Extraction of funds by a corporation from those with whom it does business, even where such a contribution does not pass through the hands of officers or agents of that corporation, need not necessarily add up to a voluntary action by the contributor, and if such is the case I say without equivocation that the spirit of the proposed Michigan law would be violated. I do not believe that involuntary group or individual contributions from any source should be allowed,

This committee will have before it incontrovertible evidence that unions in my State collect dues on the basis of union membership which is a necessary condition of employment. The committee will have before it evidence that such dues, without express permission of those dues payers, divert to a separate organization formed for political purposes part of the money thus collected. In diverting this money to the second organization for political support of a party those

who direct the finances of the union have violated the fundamental rights of free American citizens and have committed their support of a political party without any obligation to be found in the union membership requirements of the individual. I believe this committee will agree with the position I take that if this is permitted to continue, it can work to the disadvantage of both political parties and might indeed make a mockery of the rights of individuals once they have joined the union.

I charge and can prove that the political bosses of labor unions, particularly those of the CIO, use for political candidates on partisan political purposes vast amounts of union dues, money gathered for the purpose of advancing the cause of labor.

I charge and can prove that these funds are not used for the Republican Party in Michigan or its candidates.

I charge and can prove that many employees in Michigan who are rank and file members of the union are Republicans and are having such dues money taken from them contrary to their desires.

I wish to take these charges and support them with proof.

First of all, with regard to the charge that there are thousands of union members who are faithful Republicans. With your permission, I should like to draw to your attention a large study produced only last year. Let me digress to say I have exhibits supporting all of these items, supporting my statements.

Senator HENNINGS. We will be very glad to receive them.

Mr. FEIKENS. A large study produced only last year, 1954, by election research experts at the University of Michigan and published under the name, The Voter Decides, the survey shows that 41 percent of the union members in the 1952 election preferred the Republican Party. This study was made by Campbell, Gurin & Miller, published by Row, Peterson & Co., 1954 and this information is on page 73.

Another study in Elmira, N. Y., by Berelson, Lazarsfeld & McPhee, Voting, page 47, showing political attitudes in an industrialized city was undertaken by members of the faculty of Columbia University. I might say that this was in regard to the 1948 election and this study showed that 40 percent of the unskilled union members in this city were Republican. Fifty percent of the skilled union members were Republicans.

In another study, published in April of last year in Industrial and Labor Relation Review, page 408, Union Political Action: The Member Speaks, two leading members of the faculty of the University of Illinois, Profs. Ruth Alice Hudson and Hjalmar Rosen, their investigators found that 57 percent of the union members they studied definitely opposed the union telling them for whom to vote and also opposed even voluntary donations to finance union political activities. I should also like to cite a national survey made by Elmo Roper several years ago where he asked union members whether they agreed or not with the union when it took a position on candidates or political matters. According to Roper, whose objectivity has never been questioned, only 23 percent of union members generally agreed with their union on political candidates. This was in the article, Does Labor Vote What Leaders Say? in the New York Herald Tribune, June 2, 1952.

For 20 years, Gallup has been checking after each Presidential election how many union members voted for the Republican Party.