not deductible for income-tax purposes puts democratic politics at a disadvantage compared with the community chest, the Red Cross, and a multitude of other organized charities. Is this discrimination against democratic participation in government justifiable? The subcommittee thinks not. Tax deduction of a reasonable contribution, perhaps up to $100 for each taxpayer, should be authorized by law, where the contribution goes to a candidate or campaign committee that reports contributions and expenditures in full. In a sense, by not permitting tax deductions, the Government (and the public) is discriminating against its own vital processes. If the denial of deductibility is based on the theory that all politics is "selfish," it has the anomalous distinction of tending to make its major premise true by driving candidates into the arms of the most avidly selfish interests. Persuasive testimony has been received arguing that direct public support for political campaigns is desirable. There are, admittedly, difficulties to be worked out in putting such a policy into effect, but they are not insurmountable. Public support might be provided in a number of ways. Since ownership of the airways is vested in the public, it is argued, radio and television licensees should be required to make time available for discussion at stated periods during campaigns. This should be a requirement in the licensing of broadcasting stations. Another possibility is to give the franking privilege to candidates. A third, more radical, proposal-although it is not newis to pay from public funds to meet campaign costs of candidates or parties. A variation of this latter proposal is new; it is to set up a public corporation to aid in providing due access to the public ear and the public eye for all bona fide candidates. This corporate device would tend to emphasize the rational elements of campaigning, and would limit public support to legitimate types of campaign expenditures. Such a corporation might also receive and spend privately contributed funds. A good many persons would be willing to contribute to such a public corporation who do not contribute directly to parties or candidates.

The subcommittee believes that some form of public support is justified. It would be less expensive than the indirect costs of allowing candidates and parties to be solely dependent upon the support of well-heeled special interests. An infinitesimal fraction of the Government's biennial expenditures would provide ample support. The subcommittee endorses the principle of public support and commends it to the consideration of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the House Committee on House Administration.

11. CONCLUSION: WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE?

Who are responsible for maintaining high moral standards in the conduct of public affairs? Obviously, no one person and no single group is completely responsible, for no person or group has authority over or influence upon more than a part of the field of activity. Following the old rule of democratic society, that responsibility goes with power, however, it is equally clear that many people and many groups of people have some responsibility. Hardly any one can say that be has no responsibility.

Members of the Senate and House are responsible, each for his own conduct, and all collectively, for the discipline they maintain in their two Houses. Beyond that, each is a public figure who is watched

by thousands, sometimes by millions of people. His example influences the standards of conduct in the lives of people he never meets and does not know by name. Administrators are similarly responsible in proportion to their authority and position. They have official duties and official subordinates whom they directly control. Their example is also a significant force in society. Both elected and appointed public officials speak much of the "goldfish bowl" in which they live; but, nevertheless, they fail to appreciate fully the extent of their influence and the degree to which they are copied. To a considerable degree, the eyes of the public have turned from the business world to the realm of government. Not New York, but Washington, is now the center of the stage, and the men who play their parts there literally help to mold the character of the Nation.

The press, the radio, television, the commentators, the columnists, the reporters, and the editors have also a sobering responsibility. They make news, as well as report it, by their very selection. The public, by and large, accepts their judgment as to what is important. It obediently reads the big headlines, scans the front page and quotes the columnists. The press, radio, and television industries dare not ignore public taste, but they also mold it.

The pressure groups, the parties, the customers, clients and claimants of the Government are the public that officialdom meets face to face. That public puts its most aggressive foot forward and sometimes seems not to scruple where or on whom it steps. Officialdom is in time conditioned by the very forces with which it contends. A society which produces only unrestrained pressures on government cannot for long produce officials who will be able to resist those pressures. In the long run, standards are fully as essential among the groups which seek to influence government as within the government itself.

Educational and religious institutions and the host of welfare and public interest organizations likewise have a grave responsibility for raising the level of personal and civic morality. In their teaching and prophetic functions, the schools and churches can help individuals and communities to cherish the basic values of brotherhood and justice, of freedom and responsibility, of competence and integrity. They can help generally to bring a better informed judgment and more sensitive conscience to bear upon public questions. Welfare and public interest groups offer opportunities to participate in many forms of community and national service. They, too, can broaden public understanding of issues and train individuals in civic work, and to the extent that their programs provide essential benefits through private channels, they reduce the pressure for the expansion of Government. The ordinary citizen, the "man in the street," is also responsible for the maintenance of moral standards. He has obligations as a member of the self-governing society in which he lives. He is obliged to think, he is obliged to discriminate, he is obliged to make decisions, and he is obliged to bestir himself to express both approval and disapproval. The person who swallows a plausible falsehood without at least pondering over it is almost as much at fault as the person who perpe trates the falsehood. People have an obligation not to be "suckers. They can and should insist upon a standard of public behavior and public discussion which will be satisfactory. But they must exert

themselves, and that not just as specialists. Nearly everyone is a member of one or more special publics (in which his economic or other personal interests are strongly involved) as well as of the general public. If he operates only as a specialist where his peculiar economic interests are involved, he creates an inherent lack of balance in the governing process which ultimately capsizes the ship of state. He must retain something of the point of view of the citizen while pushing his special claims, fighting for his contract, or arguing his case. And he must retain some of the zeal and energy of the specialist while considering the integrity and welfare of the state in general.

The average man is, of course, a fiction. We are all "men in the street" with mingled general and special interests in public affairs. Although differing in abilities and opportunities, all have some responsibility for the integrity with which public affairs are conducted.

PAUL H. DOUGLAS, Chairman.
MATTHEW M. NEELY.
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY.
GEORGE D. AIKEN.
WAYNE MORSE.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR AIKEN

The recent hearings which have been held by committees of Congress have exposed questionable, and in some cases definitely improper, activities of far too many Government employees and have shown conclusively the need for improvement in the morals of Government.

This does not imply that the morals of all Government employees are suspect, but the number and nature of the suspect cases which have been brought to light are ample justification for assuming that the situation merits unbiased and diligent investigation, on the theory that where there is smoke there must be fire.

The report of the subcommittee headed by Senator Douglas contains a considerable amount of valuable information. And while the conclusions and recommendations contained in that report have much to commend them, and while I agree with them in general, I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not believe that either this report or the recommendations made by any commission established as a result of this report even if such recommendations are approved by the Congress will automatically result in the elimination of corruption and debasement from the Government. Laws alone will never improve the ethical and moral standards in the Government; only a clear sense of the honor and duty imposed on those who hold the trust of public service can accomplish that end. "I have done nothing illegal"-the defense so often put forward by those charged with improper and reprehensible conduct-represents an indifference to the public trust which, if continued, can successfully thwart even the most comprehensive legislation.

The Commission on Ethics in Government which the subcommittee proposes to create has only the power to study and recommend. No matter how sound and worth while these recommendations may be, they are not self-effectuating. These recommendations must overcome two imposing obstacles before they can have any real effect on the conditions which they are designed to correct.

In the first place, these recommendations must be enacted into law by the Congress. That is the first obstacle, and those familiar with the legislative process know the numerous pressures and counter pressures that will be felt before the final enactment of recommendations of this type can finally be realized.

But even assuming that Congress should promptly and conscien tiously enact the proposed legislation, such legislation will have no appreciable effect, unless those laws are honestly, fully, and impartially enforced by the executive branch of the Government. That is the second obstacle, and those familiar with the recent performance of the executive agencies in this area will hold little real hope that those guilty of misconduct will be ferretted out and brought to justice. The will to enforce the laws in the public interest must somehow be restored; statutes do not enforce themselves.

I mention the foregoing because I do not wish in any way to convey to the American people the impression that these serious and perplexing problems have been or are about to be solved by the filing of this report and the recommendations it contains. Indeed, I am convinced that these problems if they are solved at all, will be solved only when the people regain and reassert their sovereign power to control and direct their government.

The framers of the Constitution in their wisdom conferred upon the American people the power and duty of judging the ethical and moral standards of the Government, and placed in their hands the only really effective means of removing corruption and debasement from that Government.

The broadest control which the people exercise over their Government is, of course, exercised over the legislative branch, each of whose Members must periodically pass before their judgment at the polls. No man can remain in Congress against the expressed objection of the majority of the people whom he seeks to represent. Of the thousands of powerful officials in the executive branch of the Government, only two, the President and the Vice President, are ever called upon to face the direct judgment of the people.

It is only through the Congress that the people can exert any really effective control over the executive branch of the Government and its millions of employees. The most important consideration in all this is the preservation of the right of the people, acting through the Congress, to call any of their public officials to account, if need be. Unfortunately, however, there is increasing evidence that the people are losing that right; there is increasing evidence that the Congress is being thwarted in its efforts to act as the agent for the people at large. And, if the will of the people is not to be completely subverted, corrective action must be immediately forthcoming.

For example, there is an increasing tendency on the part of the executive agencies to interpret, or misinterpret, the laws enacted by Congress to suit their own desires or their own preconceived ideas. This in itself is a type of corruption which seriously menaces the effectiveness of the Congress and the sovereignty of the people.

Moreover, there is at the present time, an increasing demand by the executive branch of the Government that Congress in effect abdicate its vested powers, and grant to these executive agencies the absolute power to create policy and to enforce it, and to deny to the people the right of appealing to the courts. Thus the long-respected doctrine that this is a government of laws and not of men-a doctrine designed to protect the people is now being constantly and relentlessly attacked by those who have sworn on oath to protect, rather than to destroy, the peoples' rights.

At this very moment, the United States Armed Forces are engaged in a large scale and bloody war-a war upon which this Nation was launched by order of a President who neither consulted with nor received the approval of the Congress, as required by the Constitution. In addition, although congressional committees have repeatedly shown a number of officials of the executive branch to be involved in disgraceful and reprehensible activities and conduct, the proper cooperation of that branch of the Government in exposing and punishing the guilty parties has been sorely lacking. Indeed, some officials have been dismissed from their positions only after public exposure and