question. Any published matter of this character not containing the required disclosures would be barred from the mails and would be barred from importation into the United States. And those guilty of publishing or circulating such matter without proper disclosures would be subject to criminal penalties. Also, a special nonpartisan agency would be set up to administer the act, to conduct necessary investigations, and to make reports on the sources and activities of this un-American propaganda. Is that a fair statement of points on which we are able to agree? Mr. WISE. I think so. Mr. PORTNOw. Mr. Seagle? Mr. SEAGLE. I don't think the picture is quite complete, Mr. Portnow. I'd like to know where in the Government this proposed Office of Minority Relations would be placed before I give it my approval. If it is to be an adjunct of the Dies committee, or of the F. B. I., I'd have serious doubts about the future of this agency. Mr. PORTNOW. That is a point worth clearing up. What about it, Mr. Curry? Mr. CURRY. Obviously the agency would not be an adjunct of the Dies committee. The Dies committee is a committee of Congress set up on a temporary basis. This agency would be in the executive department of the Government. And there is no reason why it should be placed within the F. B. I. The agency's job is not that of securing information leading to the conviction of criminals, but rather the more constructive job of carrying our research and supplying information on matters which are not criminal but which are of such a character that the American public has a right to know what goes on. The Office of Minority Relations might be set up as an independent agency, or, it might be located in the Interior Department. That Department is already dealing with many serious racial problems of the Federal Government, those relating to Indians and to the native populations of Puerto Rico, the Hawaiian Islands, and the Philippines. Mr. SEAGLE. I quite agree that the proposed Office of Minority Relations would be more likely to function in a decent and constructive way if it were placed in the Department of the Interior. Mr. WISE. I wonder if we are clear on one final point? Is this bill to be limited to election-campaign literature? I feel that it should be as broad as possible and should cover all literature outside of election campaigns as well. Mr. SEAGLE. Wouldn't you be infringing on State rights if you extended this sort of control beyond literature used in Federal election campaigns? Mr. PORTNOW. I think Mr. Seagle raises a serious legal problem. I wonder if our social engineer, Mr. Curry, can interpret the bill for us on this point. Mr. CURRY. Yes; and I'm glad Mr. Seagle brought it up because I think it is an important one. I believe that State governments ought to be encouraged to enact legislation to face the menace of hate propaganda. But, after all, State governments can't very well deal with Federal elections; nor can they deal with the mails or with customs officials. Therefore I believe that Federal legislationso far as it imposes criminal penalties should be limited to material circulated in connection with Federal elections. But insofar as it provides for exclusion from the mails and exclusion from importation, it should apply to all anonymous scurrilous materials, whether or not they relate to a Federal election. And certainly the investigations and researches of the Office of Minority Relations should not be limited to election materials. Mr. PORTNOw. You mean that any law enforcement not connected with Federal elections or mails or imports should be left to State action? Mr. CURRY. Exactly. Mr. PORTNOW. And as I understand it the provisions that you have outlined are all embodied in the propaganda-exposure bill recently introduced by Senator Gillette as S. 990. Mr. CURRY. That is correct. Mr. PORTNOW. Thank you, gentlemen. Unfortunately, our time is now up, but before we go off the air I want to express my appreciation of the conscientious thinking which has been given to this vital problem by the Senate Committee to Investigate Campaign Expenditures, by Senator Gillette, and by the Institute of Living Law. The ANNOUNCER. You have just been listening to a discussion of the problem of racial propaganda and the attempt to deal with that problem embodied in Senator Gillette's propaganda-exposure bill, S. 990. This program was presented by the New York University Forum with the collaboration of the Institute of Living Law of Washington, D. C. Copies of the bill, S. 990, may be secured by writing to Senator Gillette, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. Copies of this broadcast may be secured by writing to the Institute of Living Law, 340 Woodward Building, Washington, D. C., or by writing to this station. Senator GILLETTE. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate your courtesy in giving me this opportunity to appear before you. Senator BUTLER. S. 593 is the one on which you have talked most, Senator Gillette? Senator GILLETTE. Yes. Senator BUTLER. And if there were to be a choice, you would put S. 593 at the top? Senator GILLETTE. Yes; I think it is so essential to have some control over these expenditures. If we don't, I am afraid we are putting our Federal offices up for sale. Senator BUTLER. This is a bill that you have prepared from your experiences on the committee? Senator GILLETTE. Yes, sir. Senator HATCH. It, in effect, carries out the recommendations made by your committee at that time? Senator GILLETTE. It fully does, and was the consensus of the conclusions that we had reached, and that we reached after consultation with Mr. Milligan, who represented the Department of Justice as chairman of the special committee that was dealing with this same situation. The suggestion, as I said, approached the problem from the thought of having a candidate select his fiscal agent. Then these other groups would be proceeding without authority. As you know, within the last 2 days the question of expenditures by the Political Action Committee, and the question of expenditures by cooperative groups, have been put up to the Attorney General. They are going to be thrown right in our face all through this campaign. Senator HATCH. On those two matters which you have just mentioned and I was reading in the paper within the last day or two that Mr. Spangler raised the question of the R. E. A. Has he asked the Attorney General for an opinion on that? Senator GILLETTE. I don't know. Senator HATCH. Well, anyway, that and the Political Action Committee have been prominent in the press recently. Do you think the bill which you have sponsored here, S. 593, would correct the things that are complained about in regard to these matters? Senator GILLETTE. I think it can be made to correct them, Mr. Chairman. At the time I drafted that, which was a year and a half ago and I haven't read it since, I might say Senator HATCH (interposing). I wish, Senator Gillette, you would restudy your bill in the light of current discussions, and make such suggestions to us as you might have and, if it doesn't now meet the situation, tell us what you think should be done. Senator GILLETTE. I would appreciate the opportunity. I noticed, as you did, that Mr. Spangler had addressed a query to the Attorney General. I don't believe he spoke of the R. E. A. as. one group, but he spoke of the cooperatives, of which the R. E. A. was one, or is one. Senator HATCH. Yes. Senator GILLETTE. Have they a right, would they have a right, to raise a comparable fund of $700,000, or whatever it might be, and expend it in behalf of a candidate? And it is because of the imminence of that, that I appreciate your suggestion, and I will give it some additional thought, for any value that it may have to you. Senator MEAD. Before you go, Senator, and in connection with your further study, I believe that before we support affirmatively any legislation that may be of a limiting or restricting character, that we ought to take into consideration the alarming lack of interest that is developing in this country as manifested in the small number, proportionately speaking, who participate in our Presidential elections. We have had recent elections in which only 50 percent of our people were interested enough to vote for the President of the United States. Senator HATCH. Or even less. Senator MEAD. In some elections, in certain States, it has drifted down to but 30 percent. Now, if we continue to attack the problem from the standpoint of reducing interest in campaigns, while it may have a salutary effect on the standard of the campaigns, and the dignity associated with campaigning, it may also have the effect of reducing still further the number that participate in the campaigns. Now we know what happens in a democracy when the people refrain from participating in elections. Recently Newfoundland, the oldest dominion in the British Empire, became bankrupt. Her people are enfeebled because of a bad economy; and it all resulted from corruption at the top, and nepotism in office, and it was due largely to the fact that interest waned constantly until very few took any interest whatsoever in the campaigns. Now we have some States in this Union where, on election day, only 10 percent of the people go out to vote. We have restrictions that prevent them from going out to vote unless they are able to pay their poll taxes, some of them for an accumulation of 10 or 15 years We have educational qualifications; we have property qualifications. And it occurs to me that if we continue to view this picture in the light of limiting participation on the part of unions or farm organizations or even individuals, we may continue to reduce the interest in the elections by reason of our neglect of that part of the problem. Take, for instance, the C. I. O. political-action group. It occurs to me that that labor organization, or any labor organization, has the right to set up a group, taking cognizance of the alarming lack of interest that has been developing, for the purpose of creating added interest in the election of public officials. Now if the C. I. O. political-action group's purpose is to get out the registration, interest their members in the duty of registering, making arrangements for those that are removed by reason of being employed in distant munitions plants, in preparing to register back home or in their new location, and absentee voting; and if they go further than that and assist in getting the vote out on election day by arousing continued interest in it, I don't see that that should be prevented in view of the fact that we set up all these other obstacles such as poll taxes and property taxes, and educational qualifications that make it difficult for people to vote. So that if the C. I. O., as an organization concerned with the problem and bent on arousing interest, conducts an educational campaign to get out the registration, to increase the number of our people that will participate in the voting, I don't see that we ought to do anything but encourage that sort of thing. Senator GILLETTE. Well, I think, Senator Mead, if I may be permitted just to speak briefly on your point, that your point is logical. It should not be restrictive to the point of hampering education and the dissemination of news. I am inclined to the opinion that some of the lack of interest in campaigns is due, however, to the fact that John Q. Citizen in many instances reaches the point where he says to himself: "Oh, this whole thing is corrupt; what is the use of my going out and voting; my vote isn't going to be counted, and isn't going to have equal weight, so I am going on out and husk corn and pay no attention to it." That may be a factor that entered into the reduced voting. On the other hand, if this limitation of the over-all amount is not sufficient to permit the conducting of a campaign with full use of all the educational facilities for the dissemination of viewpoints on the issues, increase the amount. I was just following the $3,000,000 limitation of the Hatch Act, and dividing it up. I see no reason also why a candidate couldn't designate the C. I. O. political action committee as his fiscal agent, or it could be so drafted as to permit him to select a certain fiscal agent through which its designated agents could make these expendituers, and they could work through the political action committee. Senator HATCH. Senator Gillette, in line with what Senator Mead has just been saying about the failure of citizens to vote, might it not be possible that the fewer who actually vote, the more effective may become the use of money? Senator GILLETTE. It would take less money to influence the smaller number of voters. Senator HATCH. There is another point, Senator Mead, that you made about poll taxes. Are you suggesting that perhaps the poll tax ought to be put in reverse, and that we have a tax on those who do not vote rather than on those who do vote? Senator MEAD. In Australia they found that that worked very effectively, and they had 99-plus percentage of their people participating in the recent elections because those that did not participate had to pay a poll tax for failure to assume the responsibilities of citizenship. Now you mentioned awhile ago that some people refrain from voting because they are afraid that this corrupt method is overwhelming and that there is no use in voting. But can't you see that in a specific county where 10 percent, a select group-and usually the 10 percent that I refer to has plenty of money, money enough to pay their property taxes, meet the poll-tax requirements, and so forth-where they vote and the 90 percent are denied a right to vote, that the 90 percent are overwhelmed with the idea that it is no use anyway, not because we are spending a lot of money for campaigning but because of the fact that it costs them too much money to participate in the campaign. So the fundamental issue, as I see it, is to get the folks out to vote, and that is what the C. I. O. political action group is, in my judgment, bent on doing. They are cognizant of the terrific situation that this country is up against, and they are trying to arouse interest. On the other hand, if the C. I. O., as a union, separate and distinct from the political-action group, decide that they are going to endorse President Roosevelt, or Guy Gillette, that has no effect upon the funds that the C. I. O. political action group may spend in arousing interest in the vote. Senator GILLETTE. Not a bit. Senator MEAD. So the union still has a right as a union, independent of the political action group, to favor certain candidates. Senator GILLETTE. Certainly; and ought not be interfered with. Senator BUTLER. I want to say here that I think that the example, as set by the political action committee, is one that commends itself and should, to every good citizen in America. The only thing that I see in it-it may not be a fact but it apparently is according to the reports is that they are permitted to receive en bloc, or en masse, a big contribution from a well-filled treasury, a privilege which is denied individuals or other organizations that are interested in the elections of America just the same as the members of the C. I. O. and the Political Action Committee. Senator MEAD. I believe other groups could set up an organization like that. Senator BUTLER. That is the only part of the program that I think is entirely wrong. Senator HATCH. Is there anything further, Senator Gillette? Senator HATCH. We are always glad to get your views, Senator Gillette. Senator GILLETTE. Thank you. Senator HATCH. If that is all, the committee will recess, subject to call. (Whereupon, at 11:40 a. m., the committee recessed, subject to call.) X |