The CHAIRMAN. I think Mr. Cable's answer probably answers your question. Of course, under the Federal act

Mr. CLEARY. What is the limitation of the Federal act?

Mr. CABLE. The Federal act under the present law is $5,000 for nomination and election for a Congressman. The New York laws, 1922, chapter 588, article 13, relates to public expenditures and no limitation as to the amount of expenditures.

In some States, such as Idaho, Iowa, Virginia, and Florida, the law applies to primaries, not as to elections; therefore, in those States there is no limit on the election.

Then California's law has a provision that you can spend 10 per cent of the first year's salary. Kansas has the same. That, in iny opinion, in a hotly contested fight, is not liberal enough for a man to make a showing-$750. Vote is doubled with women as well as men voting.

Mr. GIFFORD. If we pass a law here, is the State law bound by our decision?

Mr. CABLE. No, sir. The State law, for example, in Ohio, provides that if we spend money for postage, stationery, and traveling expenses, we must enter that as part of our expenses and we are limited to $2,000. Under the Federal law

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Including the items you have enumerated?

Mr. CABLE. Yes. Now, under the Federal act there is a special provision in the law which exempts such expenditures.

Mr. CLEARY. What act is that?

Mr. CABLE. That is the Federal act. Of course, in a good many States, everything comes in. But it is my idea that we should have general legislation applying to Senators and Congressmen and then if the State law wants to cut it down it is all right, but we should insist that they can not expend more than that amount.

Mr. GIFFORD. Here is the point I wanted to make. The State law can make it less than what we allow, but it can not increase it?

Mr. CABLE. No. I think the Federal law should decrease it. Take a State like New Jersey: $50,000 or $75,000 is too much. A good many States have no regulation at all. Some States have laws only as to the primaries: some States have laws requiring publicity, no limitation, and we ought to have a general uniform rule as far as possible. Under the present law, where they attempt to limit Senators to a certain amount, I think it is $10,000, I do not think that is a fair proposition. You take some States where the population is small and the expense should be less than if one made a campaign in New York where he has a large number of voters. Take the State of New York, there is no limit as to the expenditure, and under the Federal act the candidates can write letters, postage, stationery, telegraph, telephone, and in addition to that we should permit them to spend from their own pockets a sum of money equal to 3 cents per voter for the total number of votes cast for all candidates for said office at the last general or special election.

Mr. CLEARY. It says here not to exceed in any campaign the sum of $25,000.

Mr. CABLE. Well, in New York State a candidate for the Senate is allowed to spend $25,000. In addition to that he could under the

Federal act spend such sums as he wanted for stationery, postage, traveling, and telephone and telegraph services.

In my opinion that is as much as anybody ought to spend, because we are not selling seats in the United States Senate or House. and if you haven't any limitation at all a rich man would have more of a chance, by reason of publicity, to land an office than an equally well-qualified man who does not have the financial support.

In the Washington Times of February 1, under this Teapot Dome proposition, it appears that Edward L. Doheny contributed to both parties, outside of the time when they were required under the law, as Mr. Page said, to make a report of the receipts. He gave $25,000 to one and $75,000 to the other. One idea of this bill is to require reports throughout the year of receipts, so we will know who was contributing to these political parties.

You take a rich man like that and they might be carrying water on both shoulders. He is betting on both horses; whichever one wins he no doubt expects to go to them and tell them, "I gave $25,000 or $50,000 to the campaign," and he wants some favors. I think that such action should be made public, and therefore it is provided that on the 10th of March, June, September, and November of each year that statements of receipts and expenditures must be filed, in addition to the present time of filing as now required by law.

I have it this way, "shall be filed every five days for the 30 days next preceding an election and also after the election."

Mr. GIFFORD. Do you consider it prima facie evidence because a man contributes to both parties that that signifies wrong motives? Mr. CABLE. I don't say that it is a wrong motive, but it is betting his money on both race horses.

Mr. GIFFORD. Well, some men believe thoroughly in two political parties.

Mr. CABLE. Well, the party should know whether he contributes to the other or not.

Mr. GIFFORD. I can conceive of a man contributing to the Democratic Party and in a situation now with the Wisconsin delegation voting as they are, a man might contribute very liberally to the preservation of two parties rather than have a third party. I do not know but what Henry Ford, claiming that he had no interest whatever, with the public's faith in him, could contribute very well to both parties whereas a new status might arise creating a new party from the old ones.

Mr. CABLE. Do you not think such contributions should be made public?

Mr. GIFFORD. Well, that may be.

Mr. CABLE. That is my proposition.

Mr. Phillips raised a proposition that I thought was a good one. You know, candidates sometimes write letters. They may put ads in the papers. They may have circulars sent out to the voters, and I think that his opponents should have an equal opportunity to reply. Mr. Phillips has prepared an amendment which I think is a good idea:

In case any political, social, educational, or religious society, association, or organization, whether incorporated or unincorporated, shall send through the United States mails any letter or circular designed or intended to influence votes for any candidate for any nomination or office, then a copy of

the same shall be mailed immediately to every other candidate for such nomination or office. This shall also apply to the sender of any letter or circular on stationery having written, typewritten, or printed heading containing the name of any such society, association, or organization, and shall also apply to any letter or circular signed by any person using the title of any office of any such society, association, or organization, or containing any statement or expression indicating that the writer, author, or signer designs or intends to bring influence to bear on the person to whom the letter may be addressed or appended to his affiliation with or membership in any such society, association, or organization. The penalty for each letter or circular mailed in violation of the provisions contained in paragraph (—) shall not exceed $10 and the total penalty for duplications of any letter or circular mailed in violation of the provisions contained herein shall not exceed $10,000.

The idea is to require all circulars and letters sent out by political committees or employees or anybody else condemning any candidate, that the candidate shall at the same time be sent a copy.

My idea is that no organization should send out a circular unless it is signed by two officials of the organization as to the truthfulness of it. The main thing in this whole bill is that there is no corrupt practices Federal act applying to Senators. Therefore the main thing is to make it applicable to Senators as well as to Congressmen.

I thought if you should put too much in it, you would not have much chance to get it through, but if you came out with one or two straight-forward propositions we might have a chance. that is all, Mr. Chairman.

I believe Mr. GIFFORD. I think that sentence should read, “Nomination or election," and this has got to apply to our political heads, and it ought to be, it seems to me, sent simultaneously by registered mail.

Mr. PHILLIPS. I used the word "simultaneously in order to prevent, if possible, the mailing of letters over a period of days or weeks, and not furnish copy to candidate until perhaps a day or only a few hours before election.

Mr. GIFFORD. They take this means of sending out a last-minute letter.

Mr. CABLE. I do not think a last-minute letter does as much good as one sent out a week ahead.

The CHAIRMAN. Generally, in an election the maxim "All is fair in love and war" is considered applicable to politics. It is often quoted as being appropriate. I think we should seek to curb the tendency thus suggested by the amendment offered by Mr. Phillips or a similar amendment. Whether we are able to discriminate finely enough along that line is a great question in my mind. It will readily occur to the gentleman that the discussion of the issues is perfectly legitimate, such as is indulged in constantly by the higher class of public newspapers, and might be the subject of a circular. I am not suggesting that there would be anything inappropriate about sending this to the opposition organization, but suggesting that that method might be the most available method to reach the whole number of voters; and if that be the case, why the necessity of furnishing the opposition this literature or a copy of this statement? Of course there would be no objection to it, as far as I can see.

Mr. CABLE. They shoot it out the last thing and the candidate does not have a chance to come back unless he is served with a copy of it. The CHAIRMAN. It is self-evident that the adoption of the seventeenth amendment rendered that law obsolete.

Mr. CABLE. Together with the Newberry decision.

Mr. PHILLIPS. I think your ideas or purposes are all right. Something should be done; but frequent and elaborate reports are burdensome and irritating and would tend to prevent men of ability from presenting themselves as candidates.

Mr. CABLE. What do you think about the reports applying to the national organizations and not to the candidates? That is what I want to get at. These big political parties-we want to find out who is financing them, who may expect favors from the successful candidates. What do you think about it, Mr. Gifford?

Mr. GIFFORD. I am looking at the bill to see where the political committees are defined in the bill.

Mr. CABLE. The political committee is a committee that spreads out over more than one State and takes part in the election of a candidate for Congressman or Senator, under the law.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, do you care to hear the definition of the word?

Mr. CLEARY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. This is chapter 392, June 25, 1910, H. R. 2250, Public No. 274:

Publicity to political contributions; political committees defined: That the term "political committee" under the provisions of this act shall include the national committees of all political parties, the national congressional campaign committees of all political parties, and all committees, associations, or organizations which shall, in two or more States, influence the result or attempt to influence the result of an election at which Representatives to Congress are to be elected..

Mr. CABLE. You will note there they do not say a thing about Senators.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that includes Senators.

Mr. CABLE. Representatives?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; "Representatives in Congress" includes Senators.

Mr. CABLE. No.

The CHAIRMAN. The Congress is the House and the Senate.

Mr. CABLE. Yes; but a Senator is never called a "Representative." The CHAIRMAN. Well, they are Representatives in Congress.

Mr. CABLE. Members of Congress would include Senators and Representatives, but Representatives would just include Members of the lower branch.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am not certain about that. I think I am right.

Mr. CABLE. I will tell you why, because it says, "To influence the result of an election at which Representatives in Congress are elected." At that time Senators were not elected at elections. They Were elected by the legislatures.

The CHAIRMAN. But I do not believe it would be a violent construction of the constitutional provision to interpret that to apply to Senators. That is, to interpret it in connection with the fact that previously Senators were not elected by the people and that was not at that time intended to include Senators, would make a different proposition.

Mr. Cable, have you completed your statement?

Mr. CABLE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the committee will adjourn.

(Thereupon, at 10.45 o'clock a. m., the committee adjourned subject to the call of the chairman.)

COMMITTEE ON ELECTION OF PRESIDENT,

VICE PRESIDENT, AND REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Thursday, March 13, 1924.

The committee this day met, Hon. Hays B. White (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. We will hear you. Mr. Cable.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN L. CABLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO.

Mr. CABLE. Mr. Chairman, I have heard in a roundabout way that some Members from the South might object to the amount of expenditure allowed in this bill, because of the small number of votes in the district, but in most of these southern districts their reelection takes place at the first or second primary-if they are nominated there is seldom a real fight for the election, but if there should be, $2,500 is allowed under this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. What page is that?

Mr. CABLE. That is on page 4; and, in addition to that, the present Federal law provides that the candidates may expend outside of this limit money for all necessary personal expenditures, for traveling, for stationery and postage, and for telegraph and telephone service without being subject to the provisions of the act. Therefore, any candidate for Representative in Congress, unless the State law prohibited, would have a right to expend at least $2,500 plus these other expenses on which there is no limit, and in my opinion that would be a sufficient amount for any one to properly campaign for the office.

Mr. CLEARY. It speaks of money in excess of 3 cents per vote.

Mr. CABLE. The total number of votes cast for that office in the last election. In my district we have 100,000 voters, and that would allow $3,000, but under the Ohio law we are only allowed $2,000. and that $2,000 includes stamps, stationery, and traveling expenses, and in such case a man running for this office from Ohio is limited to $2,000 of his own personal money.

Mr. CLEARY. I think there are lots of districts that are perhaps less than 50,000.

Mr. CABLE. Well, if there is less than 50,000 and no State law

Mr. CLEARY. They can get $1,500.

Mr. CABLE. They can spend $2,500 under this bill.

Mr. CLEARY. Fifty thousand votes would be only $1,500.

Mr. CABLE. But there is a provision in the bill that says a candidate for Representative may expend the sum of $2,500; in other words, if the 3 cents a vote does not bring him up to $2,500 he is entitled to that and if there is no limit under the State law he gets these other expenses.