designed), they should go far to provide as good publicity of campaign finance as we are likely to get by national legislation. In my opinion, these are by far the most important provisions of the bill and should be adopted pretty much as they are now written. The weakest parts of S. 636, in my opinion, are the various limitations imposed in section 302. While the limitations on the amount of expenditures by national committees are far more realistic than the present ones, the bill does not (as it probably cannot) put any limit on the number of such national committees; and therefore, as past experience has shown, there is still no real limit upon the total expenditures that can be made on behalf of a national party's ticket. Moreover, section 302, while it limits annual political contributions by single individuals, does not limit the amount of such contributions by rich families; and, as I'm sure your committee knows, in many past elections various rich families have contributed many tens of thousands of dollars by having a number of individuals in the family each contribute up to the limit. Furthermore, this section does not in any way prevent the practice of an individual's lending a committee or candidate an amount well in excess of the individual limit, then failing to collect it, and writing it off on his income tax as a bad debt. In short, these limitations, while probably more realistic than those in the present legislation, are not likely to restrict seriously the total contributions of any wealthy family that means business about contributing heavily to a national campaign. On the other hand, the new expenditure limits in section 209 seem to me to be an improvement on the present limits, in that they set more realistic limits in view of the greatly increased cost of campaigning, and might therefore significantly reduce the temptation to evade the limits. I particularly approve of the provision of subsection (d) of section 209 which limits expenditures on behalf of rather than, as in the present legislation, just by a candidate. This should do much to plug up what heretofore has been a major loophole. In conclusion, then, I repeat that, in my opinion, the main contribution of S. 636 is its greatly improved provisions for centralizing financial responsibility for campaign expenditures and for providing for full publicity for them. The adoption of these sections of your bill will, I am sure, make a real contribution to the solution of the problem of money in American politics. The provisions for limitations on the amount of contributions and expenditures will probably, although they are an improvement on the present legislation, make little difference one way or the other, since such methods are, for reasons I have outlined above, of inherently limited effectiveness. Again may I congratulate you and your colleagues for introducing this on the whole excellent bill, and thank you for inviting my comments on it. I hope you will find the latter of some assistance. DEAR SENATOR HENNINGS: In response to your request for my views on S. 636, I would like to say that the purposes of the bill seem to be eminently commendable. I am sure that many public-spirited citizens would like to see something of this sort on the statute books, provided it is realistically drawn and practicable in administration. The higher figures you are inserting for the several levels of political campaigns are realistic enough. It is my feeling, however, that the detailed requirements contained in sections 201-204 would prove too difficult to enforce and might only result in widespread flouting of the measure. I am not sure how they could be drawn so as to be more practicable in enforcement. This domain of political behavior, like that of lobbying, has never seemed to lend itself to really effective and administratively predictable statutory control. 61589-55-19 Perhaps S. 636, if enacted, would point the way, through the troubles I anticipate it would have in administration, to more effective subsequent amendatory legislation. I am only sorry that I cannot foresee at this time what some of those amendatory solutions might be. Sincerely, ROBERT F. KARSCH, Professor of Political Science. Re S. 636 Hon. THOMAS C. HENNINGS, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Rules and Administration, DEAR SENATOR HENNINGS: Thank you for your letter of March 21, inclosing a copy of S. 636 and inviting comments and evaluation of the bill. In general, it seems to me the bill embodies the two principles of full disclosure of political contributions and expenditures and requiring fiscal responsibility on the part of political committee treasurers, and, while it does not remove limitations on candidates, or committee campaign expenditures, it does seek to make these limitations more realistic. These objectives conform, in my judgment, to the most authoritative research and analysis on the subject in the political science profession, and I am glad to add my support to the purposes of your bill. I have only four specific comments or suggestions: (1) In sections 202 (a) and 204 (a), is it necessary to require two statements from the committee treasurer and the candidates prior to the election? Would not one 10 days or 2 weeks in advance and one 30 days thereafter be sufficient? (2) Is section 204 (a) (2) either a realistic or a desirable provision in a bill designed to regulate political expenditures? The motives are no doubt admirable, but both the enforceability and the desirability of seeking to expose all the commitments a candidate or the party managers make respecting a pointments to public office seem to me highly questionable. (3) In section 207, I believe I would lodge enforcement of the law in an administrative official like the Attorney General, or if it be desired to avoid the pressures to which the head of an executive department is subject, perhaps an independent agency like the Comptroller General could be created. Personally, I believe that in a democracy it is wrong to escape from political pressures; the problem is to strike a balance among pressures to the end that "right will be done." The Secretary and the Clerk are not properly staffed to do an investigation, analysis, and enforcement-initiating job; the Attorney General, subject to the supervision of the two congressional committees specified in section 208, would be in a much better position. If this were done, however, proper respect for the principle of separation of powers would require a provision allowing the Attorney General to take cases of violation into courts on his own motion. The committees would be kept informed but should not prevent administrative action under the law. (4) In title III, should there not be a specific provision imposing the statutory penalty for failure to keep adequate records and making reports upon committee treasurers, chairmen, candidates, etc.? This would place the emphasis upon honesty and adequacy of reporting rather than the amount or purpose of expenditure. One final general comment. I am not certain of my ground here, and have not made a special study of the question, but my impression is that the Supreme Court decision in the Harriss-Moore-Linder case last year (1954) sharply limited the scope of title III of the Legislative Reorganization Act so far as indirect expenditures influencing legislation were concerned. Your bill does not as I read it utilize this distinction with respect to influencing elections, but the problem might arise under section 102 (3) as to whether newspaper ads and billboard poster expenses should be reported which made no reference to candidates but purported to discuss issues like creeping socialism, war parties, free enterprise, etc. All I can do at this point is to suggest that the point ought to be analyzed thoroughly, and great care taken to avoid the possibility of conflict between proper publicity requirements and the first amendment. With kindest personal regards, AVERY LEISERSON, Chairman. Hon. THOMAS C. HENNINGS, Jr., MIAMI UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT, Oxford, Ohio, April 7, 1955. Chairman, Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. HENNINGS: I appreciate very much the legislation you are proposing and the opportunity to comment upon it. Moreover, I realize the need for legislation such as this and hope that the Congress will pass some definitive legislation before the campaign of 1956. (a) I should like to see the responsibility for all expenditures rest upon the treasurer appointed by the candidate rather than distributed among the treasurers of the various committees. This would tend to cut down the number of such committees, return more control to the candidate and make him more responsible for the campaign literature and materials for which money is expended. A general authorization permitting a large number of committees to spend money in his behalf might result in a laxity not dissimilar to that which exists today. All moneys spent in behalf of a candidate by any individual or group should be the responsibility of the treasurer appointed by the candidate. (b) No individual ought to be permitted to expend money in a political campaign except through a duly organized political committee. (c) With regard to the definition of the term "political committee" on page 3 lines 5-14 might not a clause be added such as "even when the name of the candidate is not specifically mentioned"? In 1950 in Ohio a group of publicspirited citizens ran a series of full-page advertisements in 10 of the largest dailies in the State in which they vigorously paraphrased the sentiments of one of the senatorial candidates, although his name was not mentioned. (d) In section 204 lines 11-21 page 10, this section is a waste of space. I do not believe it can be enforced and since this legislation should not be encumbered with unenforceable provisions, I would suggest that it be eliminated. (e) Section 304, lines 15-21, page 20. Restrictions upon corporations and labor unions may sound virtuous but the effect of such restrictions is negligible. Unions set up political action committees and corporations tax their employees indirectly as well. Again from the experience of the 1950 campaign in Ohio it is clear that businesses assessed their supervisory employees according to their ability to pay to support their candidate in the senatorial campaign. Examination of the campaign contribution record easily reveals the extent of such organized levies. This took place not only in this State but money for the Ohio campaign was collected, for instance, in brokerage offices in Chicago. Would it not be easier to publicize and control the smaller number of large contributions which would come from corporate groups (business, agricultural and labor) than it is to make public the hundreds of $100-$500 contributions which come from the same source? Stockholders and union members as well as the general public might exercise a wholesome restraint on such contributions whereas it is more difficult to make them aware of the indirect methods of contributing. (f) Section 302, subsection (a) amendment, page 19, lines 7-13 may make it difficult or impossible for one individual to give $5,000 to the national committee and a dozen State and citizens committees as well, but will it or can it be made more difficult to give additional sums in the names of members of his family, especially minors, if such has been the case? (g) Why does section 303, subsection 609, title 18, page 20, lines 5-12 use the words "operating in two or more States"? Does this leave an Ohio "Republicrat Committee for Jones for President" without any limit? (h) Neither section 207, pages 12-13 nor section 208, pages 14, 15, lines 1-11 provide much imaginative procedure with regard to publicizing the information concerning campaign expenditures. Could it be made mandatory that special brochures for use by the media of communication be made available a week after the filing dates in March, June, and September; and/or that the committee conduct open hearings during the week following such filings so that candidates or interested individuals who might have complaints to make about irregularities or who question the administration of the law would have a regularly scheduled opportunity to voice their complaints. Thank you very much for the opportunity to explain some of my thoughts. I wish it were possible to come to Washington and discuss the whole matter in more detail. Sincerely yours, RALPH A. STRAETZ. THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, Senator T. C. HENNINGS, Jr., Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR HENNINGS: I wish to thank you very much for your invitation for me to comment on your new bill, S. 636, amending the Federal election laws. I have consulted with my colleague here, Dr. L. A. Doran, concerning the bill and the recommendations which I am giving are really joint recommendations of his and mine. In the first place, let me say that we think that your bill is excellent, that it seeks to plug the loopholes in regard to indiscriminate spending which have appeared in the existing law and that you have gone a very long way in the movement toward purifying Federal elections. I am not quite sure as to what is intended in regard to national conventions. As a matter of fact, that American political institution would seem to me to be very largely outmoded as an instrument for effecting nominations for President and Vice President; and I personally would like to see the United States move toward the direct primary as a technique for nominating presidential and vice presidential candidates and especially if we can establish effective controls in regard to the expenditure of money in the primary contests. I like your bill very much in that it seeks to place responsibility upon those spending money for political purposes, and I personally would like to see the statute written so that no person could spend money obviously intended to assist a particular candidate except through the written permission of the candidate to whom the aid is given. I have the feeling that once you regulate the ad hoc committees, which sprang up as a result of the limitations placed upon the great majority party committees, we shall find individual persons acting on their own responsibility and spending large sums of money, which expenditures would come outside the regulations of committees and organizations. If we could, therefore, limit the right of the individual to spend money in this way, we might control the total expenditures within reasonable limits. The new allowable expenditures, which you provide in your bill, are much more realistic and, therefore, there is a better chance of their being adhered to in future campaigns. Dr. Doran and I suggest, if it be possible under the constitutional provision giving to each House authority over the election of its Members, that section 209, line 15 be amended so as to make it mandatory on the Attorney General and all law-enforcing agencies of the National Government to enforce this act. It would seem to us that the Attorney General should be able to make prosecutions for violation of the act and especially after such violations have been discovered either by the congressional election committees or by other agencies, such as Federal grand juries or United States district attorneys. Any student of American parties knows that unless it is made mandatory, an official will be very hesitant to enter prosecutions against Congressmen of his own party. This same weakness, which has already appeared in State experience, might also extend to private persons and others, who have in the past been generous donors to the party represented by the Attorney General; also it should be pointed out that committees are not usually effective law-enforcement agencies. As Lloyd George once exclaimed, "You cannot fight a war with a Sanhedrin at the head." We should also like to see section 303 of the bill revised so as to control ad hoc committees wholly within a State. We would suggest that line 12 of page 20 be amended to include "Nor shall the aggrgate of any person, agency, committee, or committees especially set up within a State to influence Federal elections, exceed the above amount." These are some suggestions that we have concerning the bill. you will be able to induce the Congress to adopt the measure. the copy of the bill with some comments in the margins. Sincerely yours, We hope that I am enclosing CORTEZ A. M. EWING. NEW YORK, N. Y., April 14, 1955. Hon. THOMAS C. HENNINGS, Chairman of the Senate Elections Subcommittee Studying Expenditures in Federal Elections, Wholeheartedly concur in the opinions expressed by Kansas Democratic State chairman Marvin A. Harder concerning the need for legislation permitting Federal income-tax deductions for campaign expenditures. I would go one step further than chairman Harder who has called for deductions of up to $100 and recommend an allowable deduction of political contributions up to a maximum of $500. The high cost of elections is now a major problem of American politics with the rapid rise of such modern campaign techniques as the extensive use of television. It is becoming increasingly difficult for candidates and political parties to finance campaigns. We are rapidly running the risk of weakening our democracy by narrowing the number of eligible candidates to those able to afford huge campaign costs. Making political contributions up to $500 deductible from the Federal income tax would have a very salutary effect on the whole problem. It would increase the number of small contributors thus expanding the base of our democracy within the political organizations. Certainly the small revenue loss to the Government would more than be offset by the major contribution the Government would be making to the strengthening of our democratic processes. RICHARD H. BALCH, State Chairman, New York State Democratic Committee. Senator THOMAS C. HENNINGS, Jr., WESTERN MICHIGAN COLLEGE, DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, Kalamazoo, Mich., March 31, 1955. Chairman, Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR HENNINGS: Your request for my comments on Senate bill S. 636 is very much appreciated. I hope that the comments I shall make will prove of some use to you and the members of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. There is one specific matter which I feel should be changed. I would suggest that lines 9, 10, and 11, page 5, be changed to read: "No person other than the treasurer or such other person as the political committee may designate shall make an expenditure for or on behalf of the committee." In general it seems to me that the bill you proposed is, as you point out, very much more realistic than present legislation on this topic. I am particularly in favor of the increase on the limits upon the amount to be spent by individual Senators and Representatives in their campaign. I feel that the increased amount which you suggest as a limit on the national committee is a very desirable change not only from the viewpoint that it is more realistic, but also from the viewpoint that it will assist in making our political parties more responsible— a goal in which I am very much interested. There are two further ideas which I would like to suggest for the consideration of your committee. I am not sure how the first can be actually carried out, but I feel that a desirable goal of such legislation as you are proposing would be to separate insofar as possible the candidate from the raising and spending of campaign funds. In some respects your bill will accomplish this objective, but it seems to me that anything that you can do to strengthen that objective would be very much worthwhile. I doubt that it would be possible or feasible to absolutely prohibit candidates from raising and spending their own campaign funds. The second suggestion is probably beyond the scope of your committee, but I believe a desirable recommendation. It is my opinion that we should do what we can to encourage more people to give reasonably small sums, i. e., sums under $100, to the political party of their choice. This would have two desirable effects: |