Page images
PDF
EPUB

expenditures which such candidate authorizes any one or more political committees, or other committees, associations, or organizations to make on behalf of his candidacy. No candidate for the office of President shall authorize expenditures by one or more political committees, or other committees, associations, or organizations, on behalf of his candidacy amounting to more, in the aggregate, than $2,000,000. No candidate for the office of Vice President shall authorize expenditures by one or more political committees, or other committees, associations, or organizations, on behalf of his candidacy amounting to more, in the aggregate, then $1,000,000. No candidate for the office of Presidential elector shall authorize any political committee, or other committee, association, or organization, to make expenditures on behalf of his candidacy: but any expenditures which any committee, association, or organization is authorized to make on behalf of the candidacy of candidates for the offices of President or Vice President or other offices may be made on behalf of candidates for the office of Presidential elector.

"(c) For the purposes of this section, any contribution received and any expenditure made by or on behalf of any political committee, or other committee, association, or organization, with the knowledge and consent of, or in accordance with the written authorization of, the chairman or treasurer thereof shall be deemed to be received or made by such committee, association, or organization. Any person who, for or on behalf of any political committee, or other committee, association, or organization, receives any contribution, or makes any expenditure, which such committee, association, or organization may not lawfully receive or make under the provisions of this section shall be deemed to have violated the provisions of this section, unless (1) such contribution is received or such expenditure is made with the knowledge and consent of, or in accordance with the written authorization of, the chairman or treasurer of such committee, association, or organization, and (2) such person believes that such contribution may lawfully be received or that such expenditure may lawfully be made. Any violation of this section by any political committee, or other committee, association, or organization, shall be deemed also to be a violation of this section by the chairman and treasurer thereof, and by any other person responsible for such violation. Terms used in this section shall, unless the context otherwise indicates, have the meaning assigned to them in section 302 of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, 1925; and the penalties provided in such Act shall apply to violations of this section."

[S. 594, 78th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To protect the integrity of the democratic process by requiring disclosure of persons writing, publishing, and circulating scurrilous literature in connection with political campaigns; to deny the use of the mails to such literature and to prohibit its importation into the United States, in default of such disclosure; and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all published matter which exposes, or tends or seeks to expose, to public hatred or contempt any group or class of persons, comprised of or including persons who are citizens of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction thereof, because of race, religion, descent, or nationality, and which is designed to influence any election at which any person is to be elected to the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, or any election to be held in Hawaii, Alaska, or Puerto Rico, or which relates to any candidate or issue in any such election, shall plainly disclose the name and address of every person, corporation, and government writing, financially or otherwise supporting, printing, publishing, or knowingly circulating such publication. In the case of any such corporation, such disclosure shall include the names of all officers and every stockholder owning more than 1 percentum of the stock thereof, or, if there be no stockholders, of all members. In the case of any periodical which has been accorded second-class mailing privileges, the maintenance of a list of such names and addresses subject to public inspection at the principal office of such periodical shall be deemed a compliance with the requirements of this section.

Sec. 2. Any published matter described in section 1 of this Act which does not include the disclosures therein required shall be deemed indecent matter within the meaning of section 211 of the Criminal Code, as amended (18 U. S. C. 334), and shall be deemed an immoral article within the meaning of section 305 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (46 Stat. 688; 19 U. S. C. 1305); and the provisions and penalties of such sections shall be applicable with respect thereto.

SEC. 3. There shall be established, within the Department of the Interior, an office to be known as the Office of Minority Relations, which shall be authorized to investigate the activities and connections of all persons and corporations, which write, publish, financially or otherwise support, or circulate, matter described in sections 1 and 7 of this Act. In connection with any such investigation, the Director of the Office of Minority Relations shall be empowered to administer oaths, and to require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of witnesses and the production of papers. The said Director shall be appointed, for a term of five years, at an annual salary of $8,000, by the President of the United States, from a list of at least three nominees submitted by the chancellor and the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. The remaining personnel of such office shall be selected in accordance with the civil-service laws and shall be subject to all restraints against political activities by civil-service employees.

SEC. 4. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any funds in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, such sums not in excess of $500,000 in any one fiscal year, as may be necessary for the expenses of the Office of Minority Relations.

SEC. 5. The Office of Minority Relations shall secure and compile information with respect to matter of the character described in sections 1 and 7 of this Act; collaborate with administrative agencies of the respective States and Territories and of the Federal Government in securing such information; bring such information to the attention of institutions and organizations, public and private, which are prepared to analyze and expose such matter or the activities and connections of the persons responsible for it; and make public the data so acquired.

SEC. 6. Any person who writes, publishes, or knowingly circulates any matter in violation of section 1 of this Act shall, upon conviction thereof, be subject to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for not more than five years, or to both.

SEC. 7. All published matter which is imported into the United States or is deposited in the United States mails, which expose, or tends or seeks to expose, to public hatred, or contempt any group or class of persons, comprised of or including persons who are citizens of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction thereof, because of race, religion, descent, or nationality, shall plainly disclose the name and address of every person, corporation, and government writing, financially or otherwise supporting, publishing, or knowingly circulating such publication. In the case of any such corporation, then such disclosure shall include the names and addresses of all officers and every stockholder owning more than 1 per centum of the stock thereof, or, if there be no stockholders, of all members. In the case of any periodical which enjoys second-class mailing privileges, the maintenance of a list of such names and addresses subject to public inspection at the principal office of such periodical shall be deemed a compliance with the requirements of this section. Any published matter described in this section which does not include the disclosures herein required shall be deemed indecent within the meaning of section 211 of the Criminal Code, as amended (18 U. S. C. 334), and shall be deemed an immoral article within the meaning of section 305 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (46 Stat. 688; 19 U. S. C. 1305); and the provisions and penalties of such sections shall be applicable with respect thereto.

SEC. 8. If any portion of this Act, or the application thereof to any circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Act, or the application thereof to other circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 9. This Act may be cited as the "Propaganda Exposure Act, 1943".

Senator HATCH. Which bill do you want to take up first, Senator? Senator GILLETTE. I want to take up first S. 593, which deals with the campaign expenditures problem.

If it is all right with you, Mr. Chairman, as long as we are making a record I think it would be just as well if I make just a brief historical statement as to this matter.

Senator HATCH. I think it would be very good if you would, Senator. Senator GILLETTE. The facts are, of course, familiar to you, but for the purpose of the record I think they ought to be referred to, at least briefly.

In 1940 there was the usual, customary Committee on Campaign Expenditures set up by the Senate, of which I had the honor to be

F

chairman, and I will read a couple of paragraphs from the report of that committee. [Reading:]

This committee is the first Special Senate Committee for the Investigation of Campaign Expenditures and Matters Relative Thereto, appointed since the enactment into law of the Federal statute popularly known as the Hatch Act, and special attention was therefore given to complaints of alleged violation of the spirit or letter of these provisions. A similar committee had been appointed by the Senate in connection with the campaign of 1938, and made a valuable report which reflected practices of coercion and abuse in connection with the organizations and officials disbursing, or supervising the disbursement, of Federal relief funds. This report of abuses was undoubtedly a major factor in influencing the introduction and subsequent enactment of the Hatch Act. This special committee is pleased to report that of all the hundreds of complaints laid before the committee relative to the campaign of 1940, not one complaint was made relative to this type of official coercion of the voters, or of misapplication of Federal relief funds.

I wanted that to appear in the record because I thought it was the most significant thing that was developed by our committee, that after the situation that had been shown by the Sheppard committee in 1938, and the subsequent introduction and passage of the Hatch Act dealing with those abuses, it was almost 100 percent effective, and was 100 percent effective so far as any complaints laid before our committee were concerned.

Now I quote again [reading]:

A large part of the committee's work was in connection with the making of an investigation of the campaign expenditures alleged to have been made in violation of the new statutory limitations. Through its agents, and through committee hearings, the committee secured a vast amount of evidence showing the expenditures by political committees and also by individuals, far in excess of the statutory limitations, as is fully established by the detailed charts filed with this report.

Then, in its recommendations, the committee reported the following to the Senate, and I again quote [reading]:

Without committing the individual members of the committee to any specific proposal, the special committee recommends exploration and study by the United States Senate of remedial legislation designed to accomplish the following objectives:

1. To remove ambiguities and uncertainties as to statutory limitations on campaign contributions and expenditures.

2. To explore the advisability, possibility, and validity of placing an allinclusive limitation on the total amount of money which may be collected or expended during any calendar year by political committees or other organizations and groups of persons on behalf of candidates for nomination and election for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States.

3. The advisability, possibility, and validity of placing an all-inclusive limitation on the total amount of money that may be contributed during any calendar year by any one individual to be expended directly or indirectly on behalf of the nomination and election of a candidate for Federal office.

Now as the committee knows, there were limitations in the Hatch Act on individual contributions in any one calendar year, of $5,000 per person, and an over-all limitation of $3,000,000 that could be expended by a political committee.

We found that these two restrictions were being violated in a wholesale way. The $5,000 limitation on an individual contribution was bypassed this way: There had been an amendment adopted on the floor, I believe, Senator Hatch, which exempted contributions to State and local groups—

Senator HATCH (interposing). I might add, as long as you are making an explanatory statement, that that provision relating to contributions was never designed by me-it was not in the original legislation.

It was originally offered on the floor by Senator Bankhead of Alabama. The amendment which he offered on the floor of the Senate, which was adopted by the Senate, did not provide for this loophole which you have just described. It was all-inclusive. Five thousand dollars was the limit for any and all contributions for an individual under the Bankhead amendment.

In the House, when the bill was considered in the House, it was amended to exempt the State committees and others, which does give, and probably legally, the right for an individual to make as many $5,000 contributions to different committees as he desires. I say "probably legally"-I don't think it was the intention of the original act, sponsored by Senator Bankhead, or anybody else, that such a condition should exist, but it does exist and, as you have said, that was taken advantage of on a wholesale scale.

Senator GILLETTE. There is no question about it; and my recollection is that the history was as the chairman has just reported it.

I know the question was raised on the floor as to a situation whereby a man might have contributed $5,000 to the Republican National Committee, or the Democratic National Committee, and the question was raised, "Well, if I have contributed $5,000 and my brother is running for sheriff of Washington County, can't I contribute $10 to him?"

So the language to which the chairman has just alluded was added as amendatory to the original introduction of the Hatch Act. [Reading:]

This subsection shall not apply to contributions to or by a State or local committee or other State or local organization.

Now it might be interesting right at that point to refer to just one individual contribution group, which shows how that was bypassed, and I am not referring to this one individual group as being in a class by himself; there were many of them; but I just have before me the case of Lammot du Pont.

He contributed to the Republican National Committee, $4,000; Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, $4,000; Republican Finance Committee of New Jersey, $1,000; Republican Central Committee of New Jersey, $3,000; the Maryland Committee, $4,000; Tennessee Republican Executive Committee, $4,000; West Virginia Republican State Committee, $4,000; Wyoming Republican State Committee, $4,000; Missouri Republican State Committee, $4,000; South Dakota Republican State Committee, $4,000; Ohio Republican State Committee, $1,000; Indiana Republican State Committee, $4,000; Republican Finance Committee of Pennsylvania, $4,000; Ohio Republican Finance Committee, $4,000.

In that connection this one family, on the basis of the information which we gathered and consolidated, contributed over $203,000. Senator BUTLER. That is the report for 1940?

Senator GILLETTE. That is the report of the 1940 campaign and I interpolate that at this point as being somewhat illuminating.

Senator BUTLER. What is the document number, please?

Senator GILLETTE. This is Report No. 47 of the Investigation of Presidential, Vice Presidential, and Senatorial Campaign, 1940. Senator BUTLER. Is it a Senate document?

Senator GILLETTE. It is just a report, and is printed as such.

I don't want to use a great deal of your time, gentlemen, but there are a few things that I believe ought to be in the record and so I am going to be somewhat more verbose than I ought to be.

The cost of Presidential elections in the United States has mounted for out of proportion to the growth of the electorate. In 1857, Buchanan's campaign cost less than $25,000. In 1861 Lincoln's campaign managers collected and spent approximately $100,000. In 1940, as reported by the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the total amount spent by the Democratic forces was approximately $6,000,000, and the amount spent by the Republican forces was $14,000,000.

A study of the 1940 campaign offers convincing evidence that the present Hatch Act, insofar as it attempts to regulate campaign funds, has proved unworkable and ineffective

Senator HATCH (interposing). Let me interpolate there.

you also include in there the Corrupt Practices Act?

Senator GILLETTE. Of course; it is a combination.

Wouldn't

Senator HATCH. All of our laws dealing with campaign contributions have proved to be ineffective.

Senator GILLETTE. Yes; as at present drafted.

Similarly, in 1940 a special investigation conducted by Hon. Maurice M. Milligan, special assistant to the Attorney General, recommended that [reading]:

We respectfully submit that in our opinion the present existing Federal laws relative to contributions and expenditures of political parties are fatally defective in accomplishing the purpose intended by Congress and are in our opinion unenforcible under the conditions which have been presented in this investigation.

Now while I have just referred to the fact that the records, the actual records, show expenditures of around $14,000,000 by the Republican Party, and $6,000,000 by the Democratic Party-which of course in the Democratic case is twice the limitation and in the Republican is approaching five times the limitation-that does not begin to reflect the amount of money that was spent in that Presidential campaign on the basis of the information which we developed and have filed in our report; and, on the basis of my considered judgment and conservative judgment, I am convinced that that campaign cost in the neighborhood of $30,000,000 that was expended, notwithstanding these limitations.

Senator HATCH. You mean by both parties, or, rather, by all political parties?

Senator GILLETTE. By all parties; yes.

Now I want to say further, as both the Gillette investigation and the Milligan investigation pointed out that the real effect of the $3,000,000 limitation, that is the over-all limitation, was simply a decentralization of the collection and distribution of funds. Independent political committees, and finance committees, each claiming a right to expend that amount, sprang up like mushrooms all over the country and, although the letter of the law was not violated, the decentralized committees certainly contravened its purpose.

In that connection, we had before us representatives of various committees with all sorts of names, each one claiming that they were entitled to collect and disburse up to $3,000,000, and for the purpose of the record I am just going to give some of the names, so you can see the extent to which this was carried on. I will give some of the

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »