FEDERAL PROPOSALS In Washington, two bills regarding congressional campaigning are under study. One bill by Senator Thomas C. Hennings (Democrat of Missouri) would correct what he calls "inadequate and antediluvian" Federal laws. It calls for full disclosure of all spending for electioneering and for more realistic ceilings on expenditures. Hennings would limit spending by senatorial candidates to $50,000 or the sum obtained by multiplying by 10 cents the total vote cast for that office in the last primary or general election, but not to exceed $250,000. The present limit is $10,000 or the sum obtained by multiplying 3 cents by the total number of votes cast for that office in the last general election but not more than $25,000. Spending for House candidates would be raised to $12,500 or the sum obtained by the 10-cent formula, but not more than $25,000. The present limit is $2,500 or the sum obtained by the 3-cent formula. The Hennings bill also would raise the present $3 million limit placed on national political committees, including the Democratic and Republican National Committees and their Senate and House campaign committees. The new limit would equal the sum obtained by multiplying 20 cents by the total vote cast for President in any one of the last 3 elections. With a vote of 61 million in 1952, this formula would raise the committee spending limit above $12 million. Another spending-limit proposal has been submitted to the 84th Congress by Representative Hale Boggs (Democrat of Louisiana). He would fix the national committee limit at $10 million and hold the limit for senatorial candidates to $50,000 and for House candidates to $5,000. But this bill, unlike the Hennings bill, would not include committee spending. LOOPHOLES MUST BE CLOSED All agree there is little question that major loopholes in the present law permit candidates and their supporters to spend sums far in excess of the limits now imposed. Increased cost of political campaigns, particularly in the use of paid television, has forced politicians to seek legal means of evading the intended limits. The chief device is the local political committee which need not report to Congress. For instance, a Congressional Quarterly survey of all spending reported to Congress to elect the 84th Congress shows a total of $13,700,000. Most observers agree, however, that as much or more spending either was not reported or was reported only to State authorities. But even on the basis of reports to Congress, the 1954 congressional election was the most expensive since 1948 when Congressional Quarterly first tabulated returns. A HAPPY MEETING GROUND Somewhere between the Hennings limitations and the Boggs limitations on congressional races there should be a happy meeting ground. The committee limitations of $12 million, proposd by Hennings, and the $10 million, proposed by Boggs, seem to high. The problem, of course, is finding a limit that would fit all States. Naturally a campaign in New York or California, by the nature of the size of the State and voters to be reached, would cost more than a campaign in Nevada or Rhode Island. Chairman Paul Butler, of the Democrats, believes the limit should be raised to at least $6 million, and Chairman Leonard Hall, of the Republicans, said the $12 million under the 20-cent plan should be enough "to get along with." In 1954 the Republicans reported spending $7,251,590 against a Democratic report of $3,798,413. The Congressional Quarterly survey showed that 41 labor committees spent $2,057,613, of which the Democrats were the chief beneficiaries. Independent groups and candidates accounted for another $546,621. The Florida law puts no limit on expenditures, going on the theory that listing of all contributions and expenditures is a deterrent in itself to big spending by groups that have an ax to grind. That same principle, with realistic limits, should be included in the national law. OTHER PROPOSED CHANGES Hennings has some other good proposals: 1. Campaign costs in primary elections, now excluded from Federal regulation, would be included, as to amounts to be reported and to be weighed in determining whether a candidate had exceeded legal spending limits. 2. All committees active in campaigns for Federal office would have to file financial reports. 3. No committee should operate without the written authorization of the candidate for whom it was acting. This is a good feature of the Florida law. Better campaigns and less expensive elections will result if a good Federal law is enacted. It should make it impossible for a candidate or a party to buy an election. It should give a good candidate without money an even chance to compete with a poor candidate with money. Thus better government results. [From Labor's Daily, Washington, D. C., April 16, 19551 HENNINGS HITS OUTMODED FEDERAL ELECTION LAWS WASHINGTON-What's wrong with Federal laws governing campaign expenditures of candidates for Congress? They're "inadequate and antediluvian," says Senator Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., (Democrat of Missouri), as reported by Congressional Quarterly. They are inadequate, he maintains, because they do not require full disclosure of all spending for electioneering, and outmoded because they set unrealistic ceilings on permissible expenditures. Hennings is chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, which opened hearings Tuesday on his proposed Federal Elections Act of 1955. Among those invited to testify were the chairmen of the Republican and Democratic National Committees. Whether the reforms proposed by Hennings will get the approval of a majority of his colleagues in the Senate and House is another matter. The Federal Corrupt Practices Act, adopted in 1925, and the Hatch Political Activities Act, passed in 1939, were criticized from birth, but Congress has yet to alter them in any basic respect. FULL DISCLOSURE PROPOSED Major changes proposed by Hennings are: Campaign costs in primary elections, now excluded from Federal regulation, would be included, as amounts both to be reported and to be weighed in determining whether a candidate had exceeded legal spending limits. All committees active in campaigns for Federal office would have to file financial reports. Only political committees active in two or more States are now required to file. No committee could operate without the written authorization of the candidate for whom it was acting. Although not required by Federal law, this feature is embodied in Florida's law. Spending limit for senatorial candidates would be raised to $50,000, or the sum obtained by multiplying 10 cents by the total vote cast for that office in the last primary or general election, but not more than $250,000. This limit would govern total spending, including that of committees, but it would apply separately to primary and general elections. Present limit for Senate races is $10,000, or the sum obtained by multiplying 3 cents by the total number of votes cast for that office at the last general election, but not more than $25,000. Spending limit for House candidates would be raised to $12,500, or the sum obtained by the 10-cent formula, but not more than $25,000. Present limit for House races is $2,500, or the sum obtained by the 3-cent formula, but not more than $5,000. $12 MILLION LIMIT The Hennings bill also would raise the present $3 million limit placed on the spending of national political committees, such as the Republican and Democratic National Committees and their Senate and House campaign committees. The new limit would equal the sum obtained by multiplying 20 cents by the total vote cast for President in any one of the last 3 elections. With a vote of more than 61 million in 1952, this formula would raise the committee spending limit above $12 million. Another spending-limit proposal has been submitted to the 84th Congress by Representative Hale Boggs, Democrat, of Louisiana. The Boggs bill differs in several respects from the Hennings measure and its identical House bill which was introduced by Representative Stewart L. Udall, Democrat, of Arizona. Boggs would fix the national committee limit at $10 million, and hold the limit for senatorial candidates to $50,000 and for House candidates to $5,000. However, neither of the latter limits would include committee spending. There is little question that major loopholes in the present law permit candidates and their supporters to spend sums far in excess of the limits now imposed. The increasing cost of political campaigns, particularly in the use of television, has forced politicians to seek legal means of evading the intended limits. Chief device employed is the local political committee, which need not report to Congress. As a result, says Hennings, Federal law now serves "merely to lend a false air of responsibility and respectability." [From the St. Joseph (Mo.) News-Press of April 20, 1955] TO CURB SMEARING Missouri's Senator Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., is chairman of the Senate Privileges and Elections Subcommittee. He is currently holding hearings on his own bill (S. 636) directed toward the modernization of Federal laws on campaign spending. But Senator Hennings also wants provisions on scurrilous campaign literature tightened. In the April 12 hearing he denounced "the dirty money, the underthe-counter money" that helps finance defamatory literature in campaigns. The Missourian believes that any candidate should be held responsible for literature circulated during his campaign. Bipartisanship threads its way through efforts to curb or bar smears from political campaigns, or to establish penalties for smearing, or to establish that smearing be considered grounds for either the House or the Senate to refuse to seat a Member. The late Senator Robert A. Taft had suggested that direct misstatements of fact in a campaign might be made punishable by payment of civil damages to the injured party. Some campaigns have gotten far out of hand on the subject of defamatory literature, whispered innuendo, and "doctored up" pictures. And as false as these tactics are, they plant a seed of thought in the public's mind. Some measure to curb such despicable practices should be adopted. In search of same, the Hennings committee will continue to study this problem at regular intervals through April 27. [From the Kansas City (Mo.) Star of April 21, 1955] ELECTION SPENDING CONTROLS It has been common knowledge for years that restrictions on spending in Federal election campaigns were both inadequate and usually ignored. While the laws designed to govern the activity are obsolete, it is recognized that effective control would be difficult even if the statutes were revised and otherwise brought down to date. A Senate Subcommittee on Privileges and Election is at work on proposals to tighten up and modernize the statutes. Chairman Hennings, of Missouri, has pointed to the need by showing that in numerous cases the Federal regulations have been openly flouted with little or no attempt at enforcement. It is hardly a situation that creates respect for laws in general. One explanation is that the spending restrictions go back to the days before television and take no account of the expenditures it requires or of the present higher costs of virtually everything because of inflation and a decline in the value of the dollar. Thus a legal maximum of $3 million for national committees in a presidential campaign is completely inadequate. The chairman of the two national committees recently stated that the amount should be double the present figure or more. Present maximum limits of $5,000 for a candidate for the House and $25,000 for a senatorial candidate are equally meaningless and frequently disregarded in practice along with the $3 million restrictions. So the limitations for congressional candidates would be made $25,000 and $250,000. Another complication has arisen from the difficulty or the failure in controlling the expenditures of local and State committees. A person complying with the Federal restriction against contributing more than $5,000 to a national committee may give several times that amount to State and local committees. Also Federal restrictions against corporation gifts do not apply to labor organizations and other groups. Senator Hennings indicates that he and other members of his committee are determined to see what can be done to remove present loopholes in the law and to establish a better system of control. They ought to have the support of political leaders and of every citizen or group in that endeavor. [From the Newark (N. J.) Evening News of April 27, 1955] MONEY AND SMEARS In advance of 1956, the Senate Elections Subcommittee is exploring some much explored territory. It is searching for means to "modernize" Federal laws on campaign spending which, in many respects, are as unrealistic as State laws and as widely ignored. Still better, this committee, under Senator Hennings (Democrat, of Missouri) also is intent upon curbing or outlawing scurrilous campaign smears of the type that disgraced New Jersey last fall. Money and smears are aspects of American politics that have long engaged investigating committees, Federal and State, without effective result. Who believes, for example, that the $3 million ceiling placed on election expenditures of national committees represents the true cost of a presidential campaign? Closer estimates run to $100 million. On a State basis, does anyone suppose that a going campaign for United States Senator or governor, in contested primary or general election, could be had for the meager $50,000 allowed by New Jersey's election law? Existing Federal and State "limitations" would hardly be a downpayment on television, radio, and advertising bills. The result is subterfuge. Ultimately, Congress and assorted legislatures may take the hypocrisy out of laws governing campaign spending, and presumably inquiries such as that by Senator Hennings will help speed the day. The other objective of the Hennings committee, the introduction of campaign morality, is the more emergent. No State has had more bitter or recent experience with the election smear than New Jersey. The dark brand of stuff used against Senator Case and his sister last fall has kept this State intermittently in the national press and magazines as a horrible example ever since. There is an Election Law Study Commission abroad in the State. It seems to us that it could, like the Hennings committee, devote some thought to protecting candidates for office against the specialists in malice, smear, and slander who, when caught, wring hypocritical hands and try to pretend their dirty work was a "public service." EXHIBIT 5 NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY TELEVISION NETWORK RATE GUIDE (APRIL 1, NOTE. The rates on this guide are to be used only as an estimate of cost subject to change. are not to be construed as an offer and do not constitute any commitment on the part of NBC. NBC sales traffic operations, Mar. 31, 1955. Such rates |