Certain personal expenditures

of next 50,000, and $5 for each 1,000 over 100,000. and expenditures for traveling are excluded in the computations. Iowa.-Code 1935, section 978: Nomination, 50 percent of 1 year's salary as Senator; election, 50 percent of 1 year's salary as Senator.

Kansas.-Revised Statutes 1923, section 25-903. This law does not apply specifically to Senators, but does apply to State officers. If this is construed to include Senators, the following expenditures are authorized: Nomination, 10 percent of 1 year's salary as Senator. Expenditures for traveling are excluded in the computations.

Kentucky.-Statutes 1930, section 1565b-13. This law does not apply specifically to Senators, but does apply to State officers. If this is construed to include Senators, the following expenditures are authorized: Nomination, $5,000; election, $5,000.

Louisiana.-The Corrupt Practice Act of Louisiana was rewritten in 1934 and the old law was repealed. The 1934 law was then repealed later in the same year. This seems to leave Louisiana without a corrupt-practice act unless adopted in 1936. The 1936 laws are not available in the Library of Congress.

Maine. No limit on amount.

Maryland.-Bagby's Annotated Code 1924, article 33, section 178: Nomination and election, $10 for each 1,000 registered voters up to 50,000, and $5 for each additional 1,000. Certain personal expenditures and expenditures for traveling are excluded in the computations.

Massachusetts.-General Laws 1932, chapter 55, section 1: Nomination, $5,000; election, $10,000.

Michigan. Compiled Laws 1929, section 3306: Nomination, $20 for each 1,000 votes cast for Governor at last November election in Presidential year.

Minnesota.-No limit on amount. (Footnote to Minnesota Election Laws 1934, p. 152 states that the provisions applicable to State officers are not applicable to Members of Congress.)

Mississippi.-Laws 1935, Ex. H. B. 9, section 14A: Nomination, $15,000. The salary of the central campaign manager, and expenditures not exceeding $1,000 for headquarters in counties having a population over 40,000 and $500 in other counties are excluded in the computations.

Missouri.-Revised Statutes 1929, section 10481: Nomination and election, $200 for first 5,000 votes for President at the last preceding election, $4 for each 100 in next 20,000, $2 for each 100 in next 25,000, and $1 for each 100 over 50,000. Montana.-Revised Codes 1921, sections 10773-10774: Nomination, 15 percent of 1 year's salary as Senator; election, 10 percent of 1 year's salary as Senator. Nebraska.--Compiled Statutes 1929, sections 32-2001. This law probably does not apply to Senators. However, if it should be held to apply, the following expenditures are authorized: Nomination and election, $100 for first 5,000 votes for Senator at the last preceding election, $1.50 for each 100 of next 20,000, $1 for each 100 of next 75,000, and nothing additional for votes over 100,000. Certain personal expenditures and expenditures for traveling are excluded in the computations.

Nevada.-Compiled Laws 1929, sections 2601-2602: Nomination, 20 percent of 1 year's salary as Senator; election, such amount as is fixed by laws of the United States. Certain personal expenditures and expenditures for traveling are excluded in the computations.

New Hampshire.-Public Laws 1926, chapter 34, section 4; Laws 1927, chapter 137: Nomination, $8,000; election $1,000. Expenditures for traveling are excluded in computing the $8,000 limit, and contributions to the State committee are excluded in computing the $1,000 limit.

New Jersey.-Supplement to Compiled Statutes 1925-30, sections 65-3701A, 65-3702A: Nomination, $50,000; election, $50,000. Expenditures for traveling are excluded in the computations.

New Mexico.-Laws 1935, chapter 147: Nomination and election, 10 percent of 1 year's salary as Senator. The law is not clear whether 10 percent is allowed for nomination and an additional 10 percent for election or whether only 10 percent is allowed as a total. Expenditures for traveling are excluded in the computations.

New York.-Cahill's Consolidated Laws 1930, chapter 41, section 781. This law does not apply specifically to Senators, but does apply to State officers. If this is construed to include Senators, the following expenditures are authorized: Nomination and election, $6,000 plus $3 for each 100 votes in excess of 5,000 cast at last preceding State election.

North Carolina.-Code 1935, section 6055 (a52) (9): Nomination, $12,000 for first primary and $6,000 for run-off primary. Expenditures for traveling are excluded in the computations.

North Dakota.-Compiled Laws 1919, sections 923, 928: Nomination, 15 percent of 1 year's salary as Senator; election, 15 percent of 1 year's salary as Senator. Expenditures for traveling and amounts paid to the State election pamphlet are excluded in the computations.

Ohio. Code 1934, section 4785-184. This law does not apply specifically to Senators, but does apply to State officers. If this is construed to include Senators, the following expenditures are authorized: Nomination and election, $2,500.

Oklahoma. Statutes 1931, sections 5761, 5788: Nomination, $3,000 for first primary and $3,000 for run-off primary.

Oregon.-Code 1930, sections 36-2401, 36-2408: Nomination, 15 percent of 1 year's salary as Senator; Election, 10 percent of 1 year's salary as Senator. Amounts paid to the State for printing are excluded in the computations. Pennsylvania.-No limit on amount.

Rhode Island.-No limit on amount.

South Carolina.-No limit on amount.

South Dakota.-Code 1929, section 7374: Nomination and election, 50 percent of 1 year's salary as Senator. Certain expenditures for printing or circulating of printed matter are excluded in the computations. Tennessee.-William's Code 1934, sections 2269-2270: Any primary, conven* the sum named tion, or election, $10,000. Ishall not be exceeded in the final election." Texas. Vernon's Code 1936, section 3170: Nomination, $8,000 in first primary and $2,000 in run-off primary.

66* * *

* *

Utah.-Revised Statutes 1933, sections 25-13-18: Nomination and election,

Virginia. Code 1930, section 234: Nomination, 15 cents for every vote cast for the candidate of his party receiving the largest vote at the last preceding gubernatorial election.

Washington.-No limit on amount.

West Virginia.-Code 1931, sections 3-8-10, 3-8-11: Nomination, $75 for each county; election, $75 for each county. Certain personal expenditures and expenditures for traveling are excluded in the computations.

Wisconsin.—Statutes 1935, section 12.20: Nomination, $5,000; election, $2,500. Wyoming.-Revised Statutes 1931, section 36-2001: Nomination, 20 percent of 1 year's salary as Senator; election, 20 percent of 1 year's salary as Senator. Expenditures for traveling are excluded in the computations.

INVESTIGATIONS AND INQUIRIES CONDUCTED

The committee held no public hearings. The chairman favored a vigorous and thorough investigation of all bona-fide complaints filed with the committee, but believed that inasmuch as the committee was limited to five members who were to serve for a short term of approximately 6 months on the committee, and who had many other duties in their senatorial offices to occupy their attention, it would be virtually impossible for the committee to conduct intensive public hearings and subpena witnesses, without devoting itself largely to sectional irregularities and thereby fail to give adequate attention to the country as a whole.

With a relatively small committee membership, and investigating force, it was the chairman's belief that it would be desirable to adopt a procedure similar to that used by investigating staffs in the Inspectors' Division of the Post Office Department, and by Federal bank examiners, by which the committee investigators would operate on a Nation-wide basis without public notice, being ready at all times in each State to investigate complaints referred to them by the committee. By this method, the committee was able to obtain reliable information from a wide area.

Each political candidate and party organization was made conscious of the fact that books and records, and especially any complaints of alleged irregularities, could be quickly and expeditiously investigated. At the same time the committee adopted forms on which candidates and organizations were required to submit periodic reports to the committee during the campaign and afterward, in addition to reports which they were by law required to file with the clerk of the House of Representatives, the Secretary of the Senate, and under their State laws. The filing of these reports created consciousness of the committee's activities necessary to make reporting organizations and individuals anxious fully and accurately to comply with the law. In this respect the committee's activities actually prevented many violations of the law and other irregularities which might have resulted from carelessness by those uninformed.

As a result of its field investigations the committee has important and helpful information regarding situations which arose in several States. From it the committee will be able to show in a general way the nature of complaints submitted, and the nature of political activities which caused such complaints. At the same time the committee has conducted a vigorous study into statistics surrounding campaign receipts and contributions in each State, the methods and purposes of such contributions, the number of persons contributing within various ranges, and a special study of all contributions by persons who gave $500 or more individually to any political organization. On the basis of this study the committee makes recommendations to the Congress with respect to legislation to correct or improve our methods of preventing corrupt practices in elections.

The committee investigations in the field were conducted by Mr. Louis R. Glavis and the committee was assisted by its counsel, Mr. Walter Myers.

The following States were visited by investigators of the committee in their field activities: Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia. Special investigations took the investigators into New York and other States.

ILLINOIS

The committee received complaints in October from reliable sources, including a Member of the House of Representatives, that excessive sums were being spent in connection with the campaign in Illinois. The committee ordered its investigators to examine the complaints, and the books of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. Some difficulty was encountered by the investigators in gaining permission to scrutinize the books of the Republican State committee and other political organizations in the State, and the committee was prepared to serve subpenas and conduct a public hearing, in charge of Senator Minton, when the necessary information was forthcoming. Alleged heavy expenditures in Cook County were also investigated. Subsequently, at a regular meeting of the committee, it was decided that information obtained by the investigators did not justify any further committee action in the State.

MAINE

Because of the early State election in Maine, on September 14, 1936, numerous complaints were received by the committee shortly after its activities began, in July, and investigators were dispatched to that State. Thereafter, on three different occasions, investigators were sent back to the State to complete their work, having found evidence of questionable bookkeeping entries, special funds, and trading of funds from county and State organizations in such a way that it was extremely difficult for the investigators to determine the extent of campaign contributions and expenditures and the efforts of certain forces to influence the election.

In one of the first reports to the committee, investigators revealed a large list of contributors to the Republican campaign fund, by persons residing outside the State. Some names of contributors were withheld from the investigators during their early efforts, but later were disclosed. The Republican committee maintained a special fund apparently for political purposes and investigators for the Senate committee were given various explanations as to the reasons for its existence. The general explanation was that the special fund was one on which the committee could draw for special purposes and was a more convenient method of handling such expenditures than through the usual regular channels.

In addition to questionable bookkeeping practices, the investigators found that some money had been received from persons interested politically in the Townsend movement. One individual stated that the Republican State committee had reimbursed him in excess of $250 for funds he had used to defray expenses of a group sent to the Townsend convention in Cleveland, and that this money was used to defray said expenses to Cleveland, and also to organize Townsend clubs. Canceled checks were found by investigators showing that the amount of reimbursement probably exceeded $500.

Investigators thoroughly reviewed reports of receipts and expenditures of all political parties in the State, and submitted a report to the committee which also showed the names of all contributors to the Republican and Democratic State campaign funds and the amounts they gave.

Evidence that both Democratic and Republican Parties were making a strenuous effort in the State of Maine to elect their candidates by expenditure of money, by distribution of literature, and by other methods was revealed by the investigators. The Republican organization was supported by other organizations and individuals who distributed literature in behalf of Republican candidates and attacked opposing candidates and the administration generally. Affidavits were obtained from individuals which indicated that voters were being intimidated and coerced in some sections. Of major importance in this connection was the revelation that election officials were threatening persons on relief rolls that they would not be permitted to vote in the election because, under an interpretation of the law in Maine, they would be regarded as paupers and disfranchised. After examining the law on the subject, Mr. Walter Myers, counsel for the committee, prepared a memorandum reviewing the pauper laws in Maine, and expressing doubt as to whether anyone receiving relief, even though it should come from the State treasurer of Maine, would be dis

qualified as a voter. This information was sent to State officials by the committee, and they later clarified the situation by a new interpretation of the law. Likewise, publicity of the investigation, and other action by the committee, corrected to a large extent other incidents of coercion and intimidation.

While being conscious of its volume of information and the irregularities found in Maine, the committee took no further action after the election, except to complete its records with a view to forming possible legislative recommendations.

MASSACHUSETTS

Committee activities in Massachusetts were limited to investigation of charges filed by a few individuals. In the first case a charge was made that the candidates of all parties were violating the State Corrupt Practices Law and the Federal Corrupt Practices Act by excessive expenditures and irregularities. The charges were so general in nature that there was no basis for procedure by the committee. Investigators upon inquiry were unable to find any specific irregularities to substantiate the charges. One complainant enclosed copy of a petition charging irregularities in the 1934 election and indicated that similar charges could be filed with the committee, and substantiated by investigation, concerning the 1936 election. However, in subsequent correspondence, complainant did not furnish specific charges, and his allegations continued to be of a general nature. The committee ultimately decided to dismiss the charges.

A petition signed by four individuals alleged that on information and belief a sum of money had been passed between the supporters of senatorial candidates for the alleged purpose of defeating the Democratic nominee for the Senate. This petition was investigated thoroughly, and three reports were filed by investigators. After three sessions of the committee called to discuss the reports, which presented denials on the part of persons involved in the charges, and which offered no factual data to support the charges "on information and belief," the committee decided to take no further action. The charges were not presented by any of the political candidates and neither did they participate in urging the investigation, which was limited to the petition.

MICHIGAN

Early in August 1936, the committee began receiving complaints concerning alleged excessive expenditures in Michigan in connection with the gubernatorial and senatorial race in particular. Newspaper references to accounts of approximately one-half million dollars collected by the Republican Party, were followed by charges from individuals that approximately $3,000,000 was being utilized in the State to influence the election.

Investigators were sent into the State immediately, and soon reported that the treasurer for the senatorial campaign of Wilbur M. Brucker, Republican, had failed to cooperate by refusing to turn over records for examination. Mr. Brucker and his campaign manager denied this, and after an exchange of correspondence and telegrams with the committee finally submitted specific information desired, thus making a hearing unnecessary in that State on those charges.