PARTIAL INVALIDITY

SEC. 212. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the Act and of the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

REPEALING CLAUSES

SEC. 213. The Federal Corrupt Practices Act, 1925, and all other Acts or parts of Acts inconsistent herewith are repealed.

TITLE III-AMENDMENTS TO CRIMINAL CODE

DEFINITIONS

SEC. 301. Section 591 of title 18 of the United States Code is amended to read as follows:

"§ 591. Definitions

"When used in sections 597, 599, 602, 608, 609, 610, and 612 of this title

"(1) The term 'election' includes a general, special, or primary election, including a preferential primary, and a convention or a caucus of a political party held for the purpose of nominating candidates;

"(2) The term 'candidate' means an individual whose name is presented at an election for nomination for, or election as, President or Vice President, or Senator or Representative in, or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress of the United States, whether or not such individual is nominated or elected;

"(3) The term 'political committee' includes any committee, association, or organization which accepts contributions or makes expenditures in an aggregate amount exceeding $2,500 in any calendar year for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence in any manner whatsoever the election of a candidate or candidates or presidential or vice presidential electors;

"(4) The term 'contribution' includes a gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit, of money, or anything of value, or transfer of funds between committees, and includes a contract, promise, or agreement, whether or not legally enforcible, to make a contribution;

"(5) The term 'expenditure' includes a payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift, of money, or anything of value, or transfer of funds between committees, and includes a contract, promise, or agreement, whether or not legally enforcible, to make an expenditure;

"(6) The term 'person' includes an individual, partnership, committee, association, corporation, and any other organization or group of persons;

"(7) The term 'State' includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, and the District of Columbia."

OVERALL LIMITATION ON FINANCIAL AID TO CANDIDATES OR POLITICAL COMMITTEES AND PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN PURCHASES

SEC. 302. Section 608 of title 18 of the United States Code is amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 608. (a) Whoever, directly or indirectly, makes contributions or expenditures in an aggregate amount in excess of $10,000 during any calendar year, or in connection with any campaign for nomination or for election, for any or all of the following purposes

"(1) to or on behalf of any candidate or candidates for an elective Federal office or offices, including the offices of President and Vice President of the United States and Presidential and Vice Presidential electors, or

"(2) to or on behalf of any committee or committees or other organizations engaged in furthering, advancing, or advocating the nomination or election of any candidate or candidates for any such office or offices or the success of any national political party,

shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

"This subsection shall not apply to contributions or expenditures made by a political committee.

"(b) Whoever purchases any goods, commodities, advertising, or articles of any kind or description, the proceeds of which, or any portion thereof, directly or indirectly inures to the benefit of or for any candidate or any political committee shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years,

or both: Provided, however, That this subsection shall not apply to the purchase and sale by candidates and committees of campaign pins, buttons, and similar materials for prices not exceeding $5 per article: And provided further, That nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the purchase from any political committee of any goods, commodities, advertising, or articles sold by such political committees on a nonprofit basis, nor shall it interfere with the usual and known business, trade, or profession of any candidate.

"(c) In all cases of violations of this section by any person other than an individual, any officer, director, or managing head thereof who consents to such violation, shall be punished as herein provided."

MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTIONS TO AND EXPENDITURES BY INTERSTATE POLITICAL

COMMITTEES

SEC. 303. The first paragraph of section 609 of title 18 of the United States Code is amended to read as follows:

"No political committee operating in two or more States shall receive contributions or make expenditures in any calendar year in amounts greater than the amount obtained by multiplying 20 cents by the highest number of voters casting votes for all candidates for the office of Presidential elector in any one of the last three elections for that office."

PUBLICATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTION MATERIALS

SEC. 304. Section 612 of title 18 of the United States Code is amended by inserting after the word "names" wherever it appears therein the words "and addresses".

TITLE IV-EFFECTIVE DATE

EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 401. Titles I and II and the amendments made by title III shall take effect on January 1, 1961, except that the provisions of this Act shall not apply to contributions and expenditures made prior to such date; but nothing in this Act shall relieve any person from filing any statements or reports required under the law in force prior to the date of enactment of this Act.

Mr. ASHMORE. We are pleased to have with us Congresswoman Edith Green of Oregon who wishes to make a statement on H.R. 9924 introduced by her on January 26 of this year. Mrs. Green.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDITH GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I fully support the provisions of my bill, H.R. 9924, and the Senate bill, S. 2436, which passed in January of this year. I wish to add that my bill is identical with the Senate bill.

I truly believe that the changes of the existing law, suggested by these bills, represent a vast improvement over the antiquated and vague provisions of our election statutes.

For a great many years I have followed with great interest the operation of the Federal election law. I have often asked myself whether the publicity requirements of the law are adequate and its provisions limiting the amount of money to be contributed for political campaigns are wise.

To my deep regret the answer to these questions must be in the negative. I have become convinced that the existing law governing Federal elections is not sufficiently strong to give us the complete story of financing the nomination and election of candidates for Federal office.

Aside from a vast body of evidence which supports this view and which comes to us through the press and through studies made by civic organizations, research foundations, and individual scholars, we have the record established by Congress itself.

The hearings held by Senator Hennings, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, in 1955, and the investigation and hearings conducted by Senator Gore, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, in 1956, has proved beyond reasonable doubt that a new Federal election law is urgently needed in order to safeguard the principle of publicity as to the money used in the political field.

I must also emphasize that the limitations of expenditures now being permitted to candidates and political committees date to an age when there was an entirely different value on the dollar, to an entirely different level of costs, and to an entirely different method of campaigning.

In 1925 when the largest part of the existing law was passed, the candidate did not have to spend large amounts of money for political broadcasting on radio and television. We might as well recall that television was nonexistent and not many people thought of radio as an effective way to make oneself heard by constituents. The law as it now stands is unfair to candidates, imposing on them spending limitations which bear no relation to economic realities of our time and age. To sum up, I point further to the following major deficiencies of the national election statute. Their reporting provisions are not specific enough and the reports when filed are not accessible on the local level. Necessarily, they are available only to those few who are able to come to look at them in the office of the Clerk of the House. Nor is there a provision for reporting, on the national level, of the use of money during the process of nomination.

True enough, nominations are promoted on the local level but the entire Nation has justifiable concern in regard to these matters, because in the final analysis nominations are reflected in the composition of Congress, in the resolution of problems which affect the foundations of our life as a nation.

It is also unfortunate that the reporting requirements of the existing Federal law apply substantially only to political committees operating in two or more States. Yet we all know that many committees operating on a State level handle vast amounts of campaign financing and wield a good deal of influence on the outcome of elections.

Not all State laws have even reporting provisions. In others, the reporting requirements are very general. In any case, it is difficult to correlate the necessary data on the basis of diversified State laws.

The existing control provisions on contributions are utterly ineffective, admitting the possibility of influencing political campaigns by a limited number of large contributors. The provisions of the law to the effect that individual contributions are limited to $5,000 is quite meaningless. It goes only so far as to prohibit more than $5,000 to each candidate and each political committee. Thus an individual may contribute a limited amount of money during a calendar year or during a political campaign if his single contribution is within the prescribed limit. It is indeed ironical to keep contributions un

limited in this way while the limitations on expenditures are low and inadequate. Experience teaches us that in this respect the existing law is not necessarily on sound ground. It is easier to control contributions than expenditures. Generally speaking, it is more important to control the money introduced into politics rather than to prevent and control its spending.

For several years we have failed to enact a new, strong election law. Such bills as have been introduced either died in committee or, if reported, were never considered by the Congress. It was, therefore, an encouraging development when the Senate in January of this year passed the Hennings "clean elections" bill-S. 2436-by a conclusive majority vote, where Democrats and Republicans stood together in removing the deadening vestiges of the past which jeopardize the integrity of national elections.

The Senate bill eliminates the existing shortcomings. If enacted, it would help to disseminate information on the monetary aspects of political campaigning for all to know. It will also promote the financing of elections by a much larger number of small contributors than has been, up to now, the case. The bill thus affirms the basic principles of democracy that all citizens shall have an equal voice in the election of their representatives in government. Universal suffrage is not only a matter of numbers; it is equally a matter of equality in the economic weight of individual votes.

As a firm advocate of a new election law, and in order to identify myself with the provisions of the Senate bill, I introduced on January 26, 1960, my companion bill-H.R. 9924.

I am speaking in support of H.R. 9924 and S. 2436. I urge that we do everything in our power and that the House, by its concurring action, will make this legislation the law of the land.

Mr. ASHMORE. Thank you, Mrs. Green, for a fine statement. I am sure it will assist the subcommittee in understanding the problems involved in revising our election laws.

Mr. Sadi Mase is here, and he is associate chief counsel of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate.

STATEMENT OF SADI MASE, ASSOCIATE CHIEF COUNSEL, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS OF THE SENATE

Mr. ASHMORE. Doctor, we have been discussing in executive session S. 2436. That is the bill, I believe, that the Senate passed commonly known as the clean-elections bill. Is that correct?

Dr. MASE. Yes, sir.

Mr. ASHMORE. I understand you were very instrumental in getting the bill to its present state in its drafting and whatever was neces sary on the Senate side. We would like for you to give us briefly what it contains; not too much detail, because at this late date, since Congress is talking about adjourning in 2 or 3 days, even some saying this weekend, I do not think any action is going to be possible. However, as long as we are here and have you with us, we would like to have the benefit of your knowledge on this matter.

Dr. MASE. I appear at the request of Senator Hennings to submit his statement and to answer any questions the committee may have with respect to the Senator's statement and to the Senate bill.

The Senate bill redefines the term "election" to include primaries and conventions and caucuses of political parties. This is the first very significant deviation from the existing law.

The second most important deviation is the redefinition of the term "political committee. As the law stands now, political committees are primarily those committees that operate in two or more States. The Senate bill reaches into committees operating on the State level, subject to the cutoff limitation of expenditures and contributions of $2,500. This is, of course, a very radical deviation from the existing law.

If you would permit me to say, I would give some of the reasons why this deviation appeared to Senator Hennings to be necessary. Investigations which were carried out in 1955 and in 1956 by the Gore committee, investigations of 1955 were carried out by Senator Hennings, showed that very vast amounts were spent by committees operating on the State level. In this respect very important were the committees operating in such a huge State as the State of New York or the State of Illinois. It was not so important with respect to the State of New York because New York has a so-called Corrupt Practices Act but, for instance, the State of Illinois has no reporting provisions whatsoever. Actually, if a committee is not supposed to report under the Federal law, its activities and operations would escape all disclosure.

This was a very significant element which convinced Senator Hennings that the definition of the term "political committee" should be changed. Of course, I may say that with respect to the inclusion of primaries and also with respect to the redfinition of the term "political committees" no regional considerations were at all involved. As I just mentioned, the State of Illinois is an example which was most conspicuous in the mind of Senator Hennings and the minds of the framers of this bill.

The third significant feature of the bill is a change in reporting requirements. Under the existing law the reporting is confined to two items: expenditures and contributions. This tends to convey an erroneous picture of the money involved in elections because very much of what is going in campaign financing is going through the medium of transfers. If you do not separate transfers from contributions and expenditures properly, you really run a danger of misrepresenting the amount of money involved in a political campaign.

Mr. ELLIOTT. What is a transfer?

Dr. MASE. A transfer of money from one political committee to another political committee, for instance. With respect to disclosure, this is a very important question, indeed. Unfortunately, the existing law actually does not contain-and this is very strange-any definition of what is a contribution or expenditure. If you look at the law as it now stands and as it stands in the bill-there was never a change made on this score-you will find actually an identical enumeration. identical definition. The difference lies in the dictionary definition of what a contribution or expenditure is, but in legal terms it was never defined. It says "anything of value" and then comes the enumeration, including all kinds of transactions, loans, et cetera, for instance. In legal terms, however, there is a profound difference between contributions and expenditures. I simply would wish, if you permit