ture." It may be wise to revise the definition of "political committee" or of "expenditure," in a manner so as to avoid possible conflict with the first amendment to the Constitution. It is obviously not the intention of the provision to prohibit a newspaper from commenting favorably upon the merits of a candidate or potential candidate, yet a publishing establishment possibly might be deemed a "political committee” and its printing and distribution of a newspaper on "expenditure" under the broad definitions of these terms in this bill. Section 203 of this proposed "Federal Elections Act of 1955" would require that every person who makes expenditures aggregating $100 or more within a calendar year for the purpose of influencing an election shall file a detailed statement concerning such exepnditures with the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and, in the case of expenditures in support of candidates for President, Vice President, or Senator, shall file a copy of the statement with the Secretary of the Senate. Contributions to political committees are not to be considered in determining whether the aggregate of expenditures within the purview of the section amounts to $100, such contributions being reportable in detail by the committees themselves pursuant to proposed section 202. Proposed section 207 of the act would provide that the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate shall (1) develop uniform methods and forms for reporting; (2) provide for making filed statements available for public inspection; (3) ascertain whether candidates, political committees, or others have failed to file statements or have filed defective statements and to give notice to delinquents directing them to file such statements or to correct defective statements; (4) provide for the preparation and periodical publication of compilations of certain prescribed information. The question is raised whether the function designated "3" is one which the offices of the Clerk and the Secretary are equipped to perform since those offices do not have investigators and analysts such as may be necessary for the complete, effective performance of that responsibility. Section 208, as proposed, would provide for the supervision of the administration of the act by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the House Committee on House Administration. Among the duties enumerated are the studying of reports submitted to the committees by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House, respectively; the ascertaining of whether required statements have been filed and whether they are defective; the reporting of violations of the act to appropriate law-enforcing agencies of the Government, making reports on their activities under the act to the Senate and House respectively, from time to time; and taking such other action as may be necessary and proper to supervise the administration of the act. Departments, officials, and agencies administering provisions of the act would be directed to consult with the committee from time to time as requested. The imposition upon the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the House Committee on House Administration of the duty to ascertain whether candidates have filed required statements and whether such statements are proper is subject to the same comment as has been previously made with respect to the imposition of similar duties upon the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. Also, in this connection, the committee may wish to consider whether the proposed section 208 is subject to the interpretation that congressional committees may actually undertake investigation of specific violations which are already under investigation by the Department of Justice. If so, duplication of effort and less satisfactory results may be anticipated. Under title III of the proposed act, containing amendments to the Criminal Code, section 303 would change the limitation on annual contributions to and expenditures by a political committee operating in 2 or more States from the present $3 million to amounts not in excess of "the amount obtained by multiplying 20 cents by the total number of votes cast for all candidates for the office of President in any 1 of the last 3 final elections for that office." The Department of Justice is in accord with the meritorious purpose of this legislation the improvement of the Federal election laws. Whether this particular bill should be enacted, however, constitutes a question of general policy upon which the Department of Justice prefers to make no recommendation. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely, WILLIAM P. ROGERS, Deputy Attorney General. 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. This does not, as Mr. Feikens seems to think, indicate that they do not exist. 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 12-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 |