Well, I won't go into that except to indicate to you in those few brief words that I have had some exposure to the effects of this kind of legislation and I am quite aware of some of the dodges and devices which are used to circumvent some of the legislation now on the books.

I looked through the bill, in fact I read it very carefully several times, Senator, and I made a few observations which I will list now for the sake of brevity in just a few words, and then if you have any use for my services later, I will be very happy to return.

Senator HENNINGS. May I assure you now that we are going to ask you to return, and I am sure that the subcommittee will want to interrogate you further and ask you to expand upon some of the subject matter under consideration.

Mr. HARDER. All right, sir.

I think in general, I am very much in accord with the desire of the committee to write some new legislation. I am particularly interested in establishing the accountability of candidates and political leaders. I really think that the political leaders, party leaders, ought to do this anyway, because I think that it would do much to build up a confidence in the handling of funds which would help party politics. So that anything we can do, the Congress can do, to require more adequate reporting will have some effect.

I did raise a question, No. 1, as to the definition of "political committee." I am not a lawyer, Senator, so I don't know how you could write this definition to include the groups which should be included and exclude those which are to be excluded.

Very briefly, I think the League of Women Voters might possibly come under the statute or the bill that you have drawn up, because anyone who attempts to influence the election of certain candidates is qualified as a political committee, that is any group, as I understand it. Now the

Senator HENNINGS. That is to influence the election of any candidates or the candidates of any party. Now the League of Women Voters does not ever support any given candidates.

Mr. HARDER. That's right, sir, they don't endorse

Senator HENNINGS. They publish an information book, letter or pamphlet, so to speak, and they undertake as a result of questionnaires to establish the position of candidates upon various issues.

Senator CURTIS. What is the purpose of that?

Mr. HARDER. I think the purpose of it

Senator CURTIS. It is to elect some candidates and to defeat some others.

Mr. HARDER. According to some specifications.

Senator CURTIS. According to whose standards?

Mr. HARDER. I don't suppose they supply the standards, Senator. Senator CURTIS. That is the position of the Republican committees that I deal with. Their business is to support the candidates with the best qualifications, as they see it.

Senator HENNINGS. I don't know whether Senator Curtis-are you familiar with the League of Women Voters?

Senator CURTIS. I am.

Senator HENNINGS. I have only made the comment about them that I thought they would be far more effective if they would get into their precinct organizations as individuals, not as a league, and take a more

active part in the give and take and rough and tumble of politics, because as we know, the League of Women Voters is composed by and large of women of both or of all political parties and persuasions, and they do ask questions, I don't know whether some of the questions might be called loaded questions or leading questions or not, but they do supply just information; they never say vote against A and support B.

Senator CURTIS. May I inject there, Senator?

Senator HENNINGS. That was just a side observation.

Senator CURTIS. Don't you feel that practically all groups engaged in politics are supporting the group they feel are best qualified to serve the public?

Senator HENNINGS. Of course, the league as a whole does not take any position as I understand it, but that is

you

Mr. HARDER. My only thought here, Senator, was that I felt might want to exclude the league from the requirements of reporting and getting permission and it is in this connection also, it occurred to me, that I would not want you to exclude certain groups like the Temperance Union, which circulates literature directly for or against certain candidates in the churches of the State prior to an election because I think they, while they are using an essentially nonpartisan institution, as the churches, as a means of their distribution, they still come out very openly for and against certain candidates so that when the people are drafting this legislaution, I think they ought to be aware of what groups might come in and what groups might be excluded.

Senator HENNINGS. You might include the Vegeterian Party, which, much to my surprise, had a candidate for President, I think 2 years ago, that I was not aware of until by turning on my radio in my car one night I heard the candidate for President of the Vegeterian Party make a speech. And so it goes.

Senator CURTIS. Is it your understanding that this bill, S. 636, now would require the temperance societies to which you refer to report? Mr. HARDER. I think so, but it would also require the league, in my understanding of the bill. But I want to be very modest about this. I am not a lawyer and therefore I can't be competent to say.

The point No. 2 that I would make briefly is that I think I would require individuals making contributions to obtain approval from the candidate for whom the contributions are being made, and require some kind of reporting, because you get back to this problem? If this bill were passed as it is now on the books, and people were able to make contributions up to a hundred dollars without having to get anybody's permission or having to account for it, I am convinced you would have a rash of $99 contributions as a means by which the party in the closing days of the campaign could expend money in excess of the ceiling. Of course, this argument has no merit

Senator CURTIS. Of course this does not affect how much the committee spends, this hundred dollars.

Mr. HARDER. No. But if the idea is really to limit expenditures, if you really want to do that, then it seems to me you could not leave this big a loophole in the proposed bill.

Senator CURTIS. Do you think that you can ever require a concurrence of the candidates for what individuals want to do. Take

right in your State of Kansas when Tuttle Creek Dam was such an issue, and somebody decided they wanted to express themselves in the paper or go on the radio and speak their piece, do you think that it would be a good law to prohibit them from doing it unless some candidate okayed it for them?

Mr. HARDER. I think it would be very revolutionary to require the individuals to obtain permission of a candidate before expenditures were made and to ask them to account for expenditures. I simply raised this question.

Senator CURTIS. Would it be right to do that?

Mr. HARDER. Well, I should think that if it is right to ask groups and associations to do it, I see no reason why it should not be right to ask individuals to do it. Now whether this violates our constitutional rights in a democracy is another question again which I would like to beg off from trying to answer because it is, I think, a very relevant question, sir.

No. 3, I would suggest that one provision which says that the treasurer is the only person authorized to make expenditures and account for receipts would make for very bad administration. My own treasurer in the State of Kansas lives a hundred miles from the Democratic headquarters. He could not possibly get in and therefore this is a technicality-but I would therefore submit that you should authorize the treasurer or the chairman to account for expenditures for them. This is technical.

Item 4, I doubt there would be much reporting in the months or year prior to an elections which I think this particular bill would require, for the simple reason when you hold a fund-raising dinner as we do in May, none of the money we take in will probably be earmarked for any candidates, thus we may spend all on the State campaign, and we would not come under the jurisdiction, therefore, of this Federal law because we don't know whether it is going to be spent at that time for a congressional candidate or not. We might allocate one-third of the proceeds right now to that end am I defeating your intention, Senator, by presenting it this way. If you prefer, I will stop at this point. I am

Senator HENNINGS. I was only suggesting to Senator Curtis that I must be on the floor immediately, and I have asked him if he will take over.

Senator CURTIS. I won't continue long.

Senator HENNINGS. And you will be back on the 20th, if it is agreeable to you, Senator Curtis.

Senator CURTIS. I won't detain you long, but on these technical things, as I read the bill, if a committee published a pamphlet that might be used by any of the candidates and one candidate said, "That has some value, I will use a thousand pamphlets," and another candidate said, "That is really what I want, I want 2 million of them," lines 6 to 11 on page 8 would require one particular division of that expenditure and who you are charging it to, and then over on page 16, lines, 14 through 20, you set up another formula. I think the effect of these two sections would be that the committee would allocate that help to the candidates equally, the cost of it, even though they used various different amounts which would upset any total that the candidate had of his own, but in the candidate's reporting, he would re

port under a different yardstick the actual proportion that was used in his campaign.

Mr. HARDER. I suspect that that would be the case, sir. I am sure that that would be the case.

Senator CURTIS. Mr. Harder, I feel that your comments on this would be interesting and should be shared in by other members of the committee. I would love to go on, but inasmuch as you are coming back, I think the committee will stand adjourned until

Mr. DUFFY. The 19th.

Senator CURTIS. Until Tuesday, April 19, and the meeting probably will be held in room 457 of the Senate Office Building and these witnesses are expected. You will return at the time designated by our chairman, Senator Hennings, otherwise on the immediate agenda, Mr. Harold Fellows, president of the National Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters, and Mr. Alexander Heard, a professor of the University of North Carolina.

Thank you, sir.

(Whereupon, at 12:40 p. m., the subcommittee recessed until 10 a. m. on Tuesday, April 19, 1955.)

FEDERAL ELECTIONS ACT OF 1955

TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 1955

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:45 a. m., in room 104-B, Senate Office Building, Senator Thomas C. Hennings (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Hennings, Gore, and Curtis.

Also present: Senator Dirksen; James H. Duffy, counsel to the subcommittee; and John Dempsey, political science specialist to the subcommittee.

Senator HENNINGS. The subcommittee will please come to order. Our first witness today is Dr. Harold Fellows.

Mr. Fellows, we are glad to have you here this morning. I appreciate your coming here to make a contribution to this work that we are undertaking.

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

Mr. FELLOWS. I am glad to be here, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HENNINGS. We will be glad to have you proceed in any way you like. You may read from your prepared text if you wish.

Mr. FELLOWS. I would prefer to read this into the record and introduce our chief attorney, Vincent Wasilewski.

You might like to ask us some questions.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Harold E. Fellows. I am president of the National Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters. Our association is comprised of the majority of the licensees of the Nation's radio and television broadcasting stations. In addition, the national broadcasting networks are members.

It would perhaps be useful to the subcommittee if I took just a moment to qualify myself as a witness in this proceeding.

I have been the chief executive officer of the NARTB for 4 years. Prior to that, I was the general manager of station WEEI in Boston, a position I had held for 15 years. All in all, I have been in broadcasting and related areas of service for more than 26 years.