Senator BUTLER. In endeavoring to limit the expense that each individual candidate may incur, whether it be the President or some of the minor officers, are we not, in a way, putting a limit on free speech? It costs a certain amount of money to deliver information. Senator GILLETTE. I don't believe Senator BUTLER (interposing). $5,000, you know, won't do much; it won't even circularize a State. Senator GILLETTE. Well, you are not limited to $5,000. Senator BUTLER. Well, you are trying to make the candidates designate an authorized representative-that is one thing? Senator GILLETTE. Yes. Senator BUTLER. I was just trying to think. There was no large. amount of money spent in Nebraska, and there seldom if ever is, I think, in our smaller and less prosperous States, but I can think who of several instances where smaller amounts were spent by people now were put on radio programs in my behalf, and who paid the cost out of their own pockets; they subscribed to nobody, they got the time and put on the program. Well, I couldn't be held responsible for that if it happened to run my expense account, or the total amount, above the limit, could I? Senator GILLETTE. No; and I don't think you should be. Of course, as this bill is drafted there are exempted [reading]: Contributions or expenditures made by any committee, association, or other organization, the principal activities of which are engaging in furthering, advancing, or advocating the nomination or election of candidates for political office or the success of any political party That would prevent your State organization, or Republican Committee, being limited by the $5,000 provision. Senator BUTLER. Well, for instance, if Du Pont, for example-he didn't but if he wanted to contribute something to the State campaign out there, does that prohibit him from doing it? Senator GILLETTE. If he went over the $10,000. Senator BUTLER. Does it prohibit the Political Action Committee from spending more than $10,000? Senator GILLETTE. I would say that if the Political Action Committee was not designated as the fiscal agent, that they could not collect and disburse funds. As against a possible infringement on the individual's rights, I believe, gentlemen, that we must keep in mind that to the extent we fail to keep our electorate and our electoral machinery in a situation of purity, we are destroying government. Now if Mr. du Pont or Mr. Guy Gillette, as a citizen entitled to one vote, to have it cast and counted for his choice, is placed in a position, because of his financial limitations-speaking of myself for the moment-where John Jones over here can go out and expend $500,000 of his own money, I am not placed on an equality with him as a member of the United States electorate. He has a distinct advantage over me. He is in a position where he can pour unlimited funds in there and exert an unfair effect or influence on the outcome of the election, rather than his one vote. Now this exempts expenditures that a candidate may make for himself, or expenditures made by any person for his own personal subsistence and traveling expenses, or for stationery, postage, or telephone or telegraphic services, for his own personal use. Now as I say, gentlemen, this is a suggested approach. I cannot view, with any equanimity, an approach to this present campaign with this possibility of a debauchery of the American electorate, and I don't care what party it is, both parties were derelict, there is no question about that. But to say that we can't do something about it, can't limit it, seems to make our election machinery a travesty. Senator BUTLER. I am certainly sympathetic-and I think perhaps every Senator is-with the statement that we don't want to put elective offices on the auction block. It can't be done and it must be prevented by any means that is reasonable and practical. But after all this gets right down to practicalities. We have had a regime that has been in here for three terms and we might have one that will have been in for four or five terms, which has become so entrenched that every department of Government is unconsciously, perhaps within the law, spending untold amounts, not running into 3 millions, but 3 billions or more, which in a way is used as election propagands. How can an opposition party ever uproot or upset or divert the tendency without the expenditure of money and propaganda against such a thing? Senator GILLETTE. That raises a question which eventually, in my opinion, will have to be met, and it has such difficulties that I can see no solution. That is where, through the use of the radio and other instrumentalities of publicity, there is put on an ostensible educational campaign, for instance, which has a political purpose, no question about it, and may be all formulated and prepared in a political com mittee room. But you can't object to the dissemination of information, putting on an educational campaign, even though it has a political purpose. That brings up another question, Senator Butler, that I want to call attention to. We have, as Senator Hatch knows, a prohibition-I think it was originally in the Corrupt Practices Act rather than in the Hatch Act on the contribution of corporations to these Presidential elections. But while you have that limitation, and it is adhered to pretty well, a glance at the corporation contributions in 1940 raises the query as to what extent personal checks are now given in lieu of corporation grants. The du Pont contribution was $203,000. Now take a specific case. Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., of General Motors-now the du Ponts have heavy holdings in General Motors-contributed $36,000. Clarence Donaldson, chairman of the finance committee of General Motors, contributed $23,000. When you add all of those together, while they are not contributing as a corporation, if you permit those personal contributions you again have made null and ineffective that limitation. You men might be interested in having recalled to you an appeal that was made back in 1888, which shows how far we have advanced in our viewpoint as to securing cleanliness and purity of elections. At that time John Wanamaker, trying to collect money for his national committee, approached the people in this way: How much would you pay for insurance upon your business? If you were confronted with from 1 year to 3 years of general depression by a change in our revenue and protective measures affecting our manufacturers, wages, and good times, what would you pay to be insured for a better year? Now that, at that time, met with surprising success, under the conditions and amounts that they were contributing at that time. Senator HATCH. Well, Senator Gillette, I know that you have made quite a study of the history of this matter, but as I recall it is a historical fact that in the campaign of '96 signs were displayed on factories, reading that if Bryan was elected this factory will be closed. down. Senator GILLETTE. That is a historical fact. (Discussion off the record.) Senator HATCH. I mentioned that just to carry out your thought that there has been an advance in public thinking. Senator GILLETTE. I think it is one of the most encouraging things, and I will say here as I have said before, that the chairman of this subcommittee made, I believe, the most notable contribution that has been made in the history of our electorate machinery, and if you don't do anything else, Mr. Chairman, during your service in Congress, you will go down in history as the author of the Hatch Act which was, in my opinion, the farthest single advance in the direction of securing the sanctity and purity and integrity of our election machinery. The fact that there has been a failure in this limitation as it has been interpreted and it was so interpreted, may I say, by the counsel for the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee, who were called before us and said: "That is our interpretation, that any committee can raise up to $3,000,000"-that fact should dictate some remedial legislation. Now I have offered this as a suggestion only, I don't care if you wipe it all out, but I think that we will fail of our duty if we don'tit is a little late now-but if we do not offer something whereby there can be some measure of security from debauching our election machinery. Senator BUTLER. Well, isn't it a fact that there are laws on the books there must be that will take care of anything that you could term "debauchery," Senator; isn't that a fact now? Senator GILLETTE. No. If you will refer to what I have just called attention to Senator BUTLER (interposing). Well, while those amounts sum up to a big total, taking your estimate that you think that the campaigns. of the two major parties perhaps cost a total of $30,000,000, compare that $30,000,000-and I think it is too large, I am not trying to defend it-and compare it with what is spent proportionately for other programs connected with the Government. Begin with the time that the 48 States ceased to be territories and were all States, which takes us back a number of years. Beginning at that point, What was the total expenditure of the Department of Agriculture, of the Department of the Interior, of Congress, and so forth? Then compare that with what a political campaign cost at that time and what it costs now. I think political campaigns would fall down at a lower percent increase today than even governmental expenditures and some other things. In other words, this rise in the cost of political campaigns is only in keeping with the tendency of the times; everything is costing more. Senator GILLETTE. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that the Senator can make that comparison. They are not parallel situations. It is true that there have been tremendous increases in the cost of the Federal administrative agencies, and much of it inexcusable, in my opinion. But at the same time these are continuing agencies that have had increased functions delegated to them by the Congress, and in the administration of those functions they have had to expand-unreasonably so in many cases; but the fact remains that they are continuing agencies with expanding functions. This right of the individual voter to cast his vote under conditions where it will be counted on a comparable basis with every other citizen, is one single function, and it is the deprivation of the right of the individual citizen to be placed on a fair and equitable and comparable basis with every other citizen, to cast his vote untrammeled, and have that vote counted, that I am seeking to prevent. Mr. Chairman, may I just say one word with reference to this other proposed legislation, S. 592 and S. 594, and then I will not impose on you any further. Senator HATCH. It is no imposition; we are awfully glad to have your views, Senator Gillette, and you are touching upon a question that is vital. Senator BUTLER. Don't hurry on our account. Senator GILLETTE. I did want to refer to these for a minute. Senator HATCH. I wanted to say this, that it is my impression, Senator Gillette and this is occasioned by what Senator Butler said about debauchery-that you didn't mean, when you used the term "debauchery," the actual buying of votes, for instance. Of course we have legislation as to that. But you meant the wholesale spending of money in such quantities as to amount to debauchery? Senator GILLETTE. Yes. Senator HATCH. Even though the expenditures were, in themselves, legal? Senator GILLETTE. Yes; and it is not my contention now that the expenditures in the last campaign which I referred to, up to $20,000,000 as reported to us, were not legal under the statute. The best legal minds that we could get reached the conclusion that they were legal; but it seemed to me that it gave such an opportunity for the expenditure of these sums of money to influence the voters, that it gave not only corporations, but individuals, an unfair advantage. Now the other two measures that are before you pertain to a more difficult matter even than this that we have been discussing-the use of subversive propaganda, in political campaigns. This committee-I mean the committee of which I had the honor to be chairman-called attention to it and we urged that something be done because it reached an all-time high in the last campaign. The use of subversive and prejudicial campaign literature has been common in all campaigns, and any attempt to control it brings you right head-on to the right of the individual to express his opinions, within the limitations of the slander and libel laws. If I think that the candidate for the Presidency is a rat, I have a right to express that, as an American citizen, and the right to do so ought not be interfered with. But there was evidence that to us was incontrovertible, though it could not be documented, that in this last campaign much of the literature that was circulated was financed from abroad for the purpose of creating disunity in the United States. And the question came up, and comes up at the present time, Isn't there some way that we can control that and not interfere with freedom of speech and expression? A suggested method is embodied in these two resolutions. Senator GILLETTE. Yes. S. 594 was written by a group of lawyers who worked on it for months up in New York, and sent it to me for introduction. The other, S. 592, was a suggestion of a member of our committee. The first one approaches it simply as a matter of criminal charge. I want to call attention to the fact that this book that I have brought in here and I am going to leave it with you-is a compilation of that type of literature used in the 1940 campaign, and an astounding percentage of it is anonymous. The difficulty is that the circulators of that type of literature hide behind a coward's cloak of anonymity. There was a definite instance that I will call attention to. One of the Milwaukee papers carried one of the most vicious political advertisements I have ever seen; I don't recall now which party it concerned, and it doesn't make any difference, but we sent an investigator out there to this newspaper. "Yes, we printed that"a political advertisement, no name of an endorser or sponsor, but labeled "political advertisement." "Who ordered it?" There was no record on the books. But after investigation they found that some man came in with his copy and said: "What will it cost to print this?" "Four thousand dollars". "All right"-and he dug down in his pocket and dug up the $4,000 in cash and paid for it, and there is no record as to who it was. So, from the fact that an astounding percentage of this literature was of that type, anonymous, it occurred to us, as the committee at the time, that there might be some advance made or some control reached in that direction, and that if I wanted to say that a candidate was a rat, I should be able to do it but that I should also be willing to sponsor the statement; and that possibly if we could make it a criminal matter if a man printed or circulated this type of literature unless it carried on its face the name of the sponsor, that that would at least require these people to endorse what they are putting out. I just want to call the committee's attention, to show the devious methods they use, to this one on page 5 of this book. Now this is a leaflet that was circulated in the last campaign. [Reading:] BEWARE, AMERICAN JEWRY! A CRISIS CONFRONTS OUR PEOPLE! The champion protector of Israel is threatened by the dark forces of reaction. We must not yield nor lose the gains made possible by the fearless leadership of our defender. We must not permit the election of one who might alter the course set to punish our arch enemy by force of arms. Franklin D. Roosevelt has proved his loyalty and affection for the Jewish people by 1. Earning the Jewish medal. 2. The appointment of Sidney Hillman Prof. Felix Frankfurter Henry Morgenthau, Jr. Judge Samuel Mandelbaum Vote New Deal. Leo Paslovsky |