Francis Green, Rhode Island (Democrat); Tom Stewart, Tennessee (Democrat); James Tunnell, Delaware (Democrat); Joseph H. Ball, Minnesota (Republican); and Homer Ferguson, Michigan (Republican).

The committee convened on April 27, 1944, and organized by electing Senator Theodore Francis Green as chairman. No change in membership occurred during the tenure of the committee.

The empowering resolution authorized and directed the committee to investigate:

1. The campaign expenditures of all Presidential, Vice Presidential, and senatorial candidates made in connection with their campaigns for nomination and election to office;

2. The amounts contributed, and the value of services and facilities made available by any individual, group of individuals, partnership, association, or corporation to any such candidate in connection with his campaign or for the purpose of influencing votes at a primary, general election, or nominating convention;

3. The expenditure of funds appropriated by Congress in such a manner as to influence the votes to be cast for any such candidate at a primary or general election;

4. The use of any other means or influence, including the promise or use of patronage in such a manner as to influence the nomination or election of such candidates; and

5. Other matters relating to the election and campaigns of such candidates as the committee might deem to be of public interest and which would aid the Senate in enacting remedial legislation or deciding any contest.

The committee was vested with the authority to initiate investigations and conduct hearings upon its own motion or upon any information it deemed reasonable or reliable. Furthermore, the resolution provided that the committee should conduct an investigation and hearing upon any complaint filed with it under oath setting forth allegations pertinent to the subject matter of the resolution.

POLICY OF THE COMMITTEE

For the first time since 1864 a Presidential campaign was being conducted during a state of war emergency. Necessarily, the chief attention of the Congress was wholeheartedly directed to the successful prosecution of the war on the far-flung battle fronts of the world. Taking cognizance of this fact, the committee pursued a policy of initiating action only upon such complaints as could be fairly examined and considered within limitations attendant upon conditions created by a wartime economy. Full and fair consideration was given to all substantive complaints filed with the committee.

Before conducting formal hearings, or pursuing an intensive investigation on substantive matters brought to its attention, the committee endeavored, wherever possible, to adhere to a practice of initiating preliminary inquiries and to examine the facts found therein. In addition to the matters included in this report, therefore, there were other complaints made to the committee which as a result of a preliminary inquiry the committee decided did not warrant an investigation.

The committee further followed the practice established by its predecessors of cooperating with Federal and State enforcement agencies in making available all evidence uncovered in the course of its investigation which was relevant to matters of an enforcement nature. Several specific cases which were examined by the committee were formally referred to the Department of Justice. In addition, in at least one State, New Jersey, the facts brought to light by the committee's investigation became the subject matter for a State grand-jury investigation.

SCOPE OF INVESTIGATIONS-GENERAL

During the course of the year, a heavy volume of complaints was filed with the committee and in numerous instances requests for investigations were made. Generally, investigations were authorized only in instances where the subject matter was deemed of public interest and importance. Matters outside the jurisdiction of the committee, but nevertheless of an important nature, were promptly referred to the proper enforcement and administrative agencies for their attention.

Field investigations were conducted in the following States: Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

The committee conducted nine hearings including subcommittee hearings at Newark, N. J.; Little Rock, Ark.; and Indianapolis, Ind. Supplementing information acquired by means of investigation only, the committee adopted the use of questionnaire forms. Questionnaire forms, together with copies of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act and the Hatch Act, were mailed to all candidates for nomination for election to the United States Senate. Two hundred and seventeen were forwarded to candidates in primary elections and all forms duly executed were returned to the committee except in eight instances involving defeated_candidates. The delinquents are as follows: Joe Conway, Arizona (Democrat); John J. Taheny, California (DemocratRepublican); Finley Moore, Florida (Democrat); E. A. Stephens, Louisiana (Democrat); Kenneth Johnson, Nevada (Republican); Marvin C. Harrison, Ohio (Democrat); Jack Benson, Oklahoma (Democrat); and Paul R. Nagle, Oklahoma (Independent). A total of 95 questionnaires were sent to candidates in the general election. All were filed with the committee.

Findings of prior campaign expenditures committees demonstrated that a large portion of campaign funds expended during a national election on behalf of candidates for Federal office are channeled through State committees of both of the national parties. Consequently, a questionnaire was forwarded to the chairmen of the State committees of both the Democratic and Republican parties in each of the 48 States. Delay on the part of some of the State chairmen in filing returns with the committee caused the committee to follow up the matter by means of telegraphic requests for the furnishing of the information. The cooperation on the whole was most encouraging. Despite 3 telegraphic requests, however, the following_State chairmen failed to file the requested information: Hon. J. Lon Duckworth, Georgia (Democrat); Hon. John F. Cahill, Massachusetts

(Democrat); Hon. Robert E. Tehan, Wisconsin (Democrat); Hon. Thomas Whalen, North Dakota (Republican).

Experience has demonstrated that a host of committees receive and expend substantial sums of money during campaign years which influence wholly or in part the election of candidates for the United States Senate and Presidential and Vice Presidential electors and file no information with the Clerk of the House of Representatives in Washington. Many of these reports, however, are filed in the office of the secretary of state of the State in which they operate. The committee, therefore, requested the secretary of state of each of the 48 States to file with it a list of all receipts and expenditures made by committees which have filed reports in their respective offices. Because of the dissimilarity of State law, as well as the nonexistence of a corrupt practices act in several States, a uniform coverage was not achieved. The secretary of state of New York informed the committee that due to a lack of clerical help it was impossible for him to comply with the committee's request. This information, however, was obtained by committee agents who examined reports in the State capitol. The information obtained has been of signal value to the committee, particularly in the examination of expenditures made by county and local committees of both parties, as well as the local committees of some independent organizations such as the Political Action Committee.

Because it was evident that considerable sums of money expended by so-called "independent committees" were never reported to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the committee made a special effort to obtain information from such committees by means of a specially prepared questionnaire form. The problem inherent in the growth of independent committees was emphasized by the report of the Gillette committee in 1940. This phase of the committee's investigation is fully discussed beginning on page 5 of this report.

The amounts of individual contributions to party campaign funds have always been a matter of concern to previous investigating committees. Moreover, the provisions of the Hatch Act limiting the amount of individual contributions to political committees, other than State or local, to $5,000 in 1 calendar year lend particular importance to this phase of political activity. The committee, therefore, carefully examined all reports which were filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives, with the special committee, or which were found on file in the office of the secretary of state of New York. The names and addresses of all donors of $500 or more to these committees were tabulated upon a special card index. This information is found in appendix IX.

The information thus obtained from authentic sources represents, it is believed, the most complete data ever assembled on the matter of political campaign receipts and expenditures. A special endeavor was made to trace the transfer of funds from one committee to another so that duplications of receipts and expenditures would be eliminated. and the totals reported would thus reflect as accurate an account as possible.

The foregoing discussion indicates a few of the complications met in trying to discover the true picture as to campaign contributions and expenditures. In view of the absence of uniformity in accounting practices by political groups and individuals; in view of the variety

of places where such information is filed, if required to be filed at all; in view of the physical impossibility of examining into expenditures on the lower levels, so as to allocate properly those elements which redound to the benefit of the Federal ticket; in view of the utter impossibility of catching all transfers from one committee to another, it would be presumptuous indeed for this committee to suggest that the information here presented includes all contributions and expenditures involved in the 1944 election. As the Special Campaign Expenditures Committee of the United States Senate in 1936 well said: "There is no accounting practice in the United States today which presents so many complexities arising from lack of uniformity and completeness as that of political organizations." The trend toward decentralization of expenditures, due in part to the unrealistic $3,000,000 ceiling limitation in the Hatch Act, has infinitely increased the difficulties over those facing the 1936 committee.

II. SUBJECTS INVESTIGATED

A. INDEPENDENT COMMITTEES

For many years past a favorite device of political organizations has been to create ostensibly independent groups, usually termed "committees," through which to appeal to specialized groups or to independent voters. Such groups are usually created by and are wholly financed by the regular party organizations.

The past two decades, however, have seen a rapid growth of formally organized groups which in fact and in name are independent of regular party organizations, but which, in many instances, devote a substantial portion of their whole energies to the advancement of their own views on political subjects.

This growth was accelerated in 1940 by the adoption of the Hatch Act, with its limitation of $3,000,000 on the expenditures of a single political committee and of $5,000 on the legal contribution of an individual to a political committee as defined by the Corrupt Practices Act.

The Special Committee Investigating Campaign Expenditures in 1940 in its final report drew attention to the large number of independent committees which had functioned during the 1940 election campaign, and to the substantial sums expended by them.

When the Special Committee Investigating Campaign Expenditures of 1944 was formed, therefore, it was decided that a formal study of independent committees should be initiated, and that not only should a serious effort be made to find out what sums had been expended, but to learn something of their organizational functions and objectives.

This conviction was strengthened by the investigation in New Jersey of the State Republican League and Republican Citizens Committee. The revelations there pointed strongly to a condition in which ostensible political organizations were in reality organizations for private profit, suggestive of the high-pressure fake charity campaigns so frequently exposed.

The difficulties of an over-all study of independent political committees were readily recognized. Some of these were:

1. Many long-established groups which had political implications in their work were not actually engaged in campaigning.

2. Other long-established groups were by intent and implication actively engaged in furthering the candidacies of specific candidates for Federal office, but were presenting themselves to the public as nonpartisan "educational" or "research” groups.

3. Many of the organizations spending the largest amounts of money were, or would be, of the most ephemeral nature, formed literally on the spur of the moment and disbanding immediately after election day.

4. A mailing list of those to be queried must necessarily be formed from newspaper reports, or from complaints received by the committee, or from mail received by Members of Congress and transmitted to the committee, or from hearsay. Any mailing list thus composed, it was recognized, would on the one hand be incomplete, and on the other hand would contain some names of organizations genuinely without political implications.

5. Enforcement of requests for detailed information, made by mail, would be difficult, in case of recalcitrance, because of the limitations of time and staff.

After careful consideration, it was determined that a questionnaire should be submitted to organizations believed to be engaged in political activity within the scope of the empowering resolution so designed as to elicit information helpful to an understanding of the problems created by the growth of independent committees. Organizations which regarded themselves as outside the scope of the special committee's authority were requested to so state.

Some definition of the term "independent political committee" had to be adopted arbitrarily, since none existed in law or in precedents.

As a wholly pragmatic definition, subject to such revision as might appear necessary, an independent political committee was assumed to be: (1) Not a division or affiliate of and not officially sponsored by a regularly organized and recognized political party; (2) not financed in whole by a regularly constituted and recognized political party; (3) engaged in such activities as would or might affect the outcome of a primary or general election or of a nominating convention in which candidates for elective Federal office were to be voted upon. The replies cannot be regarded as actually representing more than a part of the total number of independent organizations as so defined. In connection with possible future studies of this subject by other Senate committees, it is recommended that:

1. The questionnaire can profitably be simplified, thereby reducing the burden on recipients. A simplified questionnaire can be followed up with individual requests for specific information when it is deemed necessary.

2. The independent committees should be required to answer the policy questions at any time convenient to the committee, and notified in advance that they will be required to file information as to funds received and expended at a reasonable time subsequent to the date of election. In many instances committees extremely active during the campaign close their books and disband the day after election.

This study was predicated upon the belief that the Congress and the people of the United States are entitled to a full knowledge of the operation of any political committees, whether they are supported by