The CHAIRMAN. As suggested by Mr. Cleary's observation, I have seen a table of the votes cast for presidential candidates, and it is most amazing. It is surprising the small number of votes cast. I have not the table before me and I do not think it is in my office. Mr. CABLE. You mean in the South.

The CHAIRMAN. I mean in certain districts in the United States. I would not say in what section, but I think instances are on record where there are less than 10,000 votes cast.

Mr. CABLE. Yes; in a congressional district, in New York, for example, they have so many foreign-born, they have a population of 200,000 or 300,000, but they have never been naturalized, and the votes run as low, I believe, as 6,000.

Mr. CLEARY. I did not know there was anything as low as that; there are about 60,000 votes in my district. I got some 35,000 and my nearest opponent got 19,000. That is 54,000 and there are some other men, Socialists, etc., which run it up to 60,000 votes.

Mr. CABLE. In New York you could spend $2,500 to start with and there is no limit under the State law, and you could buy thousands of dollars worth of stamps, stationery, telegram, telephone service, and traveling expenses in addition to the $2,500. The idea is to have some kind of a uniform rule throughout the United States so far as possible.

There are two or three suggestions. I believe the bill should be changed so that a candidate for Senator or Representative should not be required to file so many reports, but the first report 30 days before election, should include all receipts and contributions received or expended since the last one he filed.

The CHAIRMAN. It is your suggestion, Mr. Cable, that these amendments should be made here in the committee?

Mr. CABLE. What I would like to do is to get the idea of the committee and then redraft it to conform, and then reintroduce it, and then we would not have any committee amendment.

Mr. CLEARY. I have never spent a penny in my life for election. Mr. GIFFORD. I was going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that four times a year, beginning in March, was altogether too burdensome, and that ought to be changed.

Mr. CABLE. As for candidates; I think for the political campaign committees they ought to make reports.

Mr. GIFFORD. Well, you have a campaign committee in each town. Mr. CABLE. Not a town campaign committee, but the national campaign committee, and committees that extend in to more than one State.

Mr. GIFFORD. You do not say that here.

Mr. CABLE. Yes. The definition of a political committee is found in section 1 of the act of June 25, 1910, and it provides that a political committee shall include the national committees of all political parties, and national congressional campaign committees of all political parties, of committees, associations, or organizations which shall in two or more States influence the results or attempt to influence the results of an election at which Representatives are to be elected. That refers to committees who have headquarters in Washington. Now, a local committee would not come under that, because they operate under one State.

Mr. GIFFORD. Is there any objection to section 5?

Mr. CABLE. Oh, no. Your idea is to say the treasurer of every political committee as defined in section 1 of this law. That would be alright.

Mr. GIFFORD. Then again, we want to make it clear. I think that amendment applies only to an election, not nominations at all. Mr. CABLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. GIFFORD. Then on page 3, Mr. Chairman, it is not clear to me where you spend 3 cents a vote, at the bottom of the page, it says:

That a candidate for Senator of the United States, either directly or by and with the aid or means of political committees, associations, organizations, and his or her frends, may here contribute, expend

It does not say in addition thereto. It does not imply that to me. Mr. CABLE. I did not intend it to be in addition. Mr. GIFFORD. You meant to say after spending 3 cents a vote that has to be figured in with the maximum amount $2,500. Mr. CABLE. Yes, sir.

If you

Mr. GIFFORD. Altogether, we could spend over $2,500. Mr. CABLE. Well, it depends upon the number of votes. have 100,000 votes in your district you can spend $3,000. My idea is this: Suppose you had only 50.000 votes: then you can spend $1,500.

Mr. GIFFORD. Plus $1,000.

Mr. CABLE. Yes, sir: plus $1,000.

Mr. REED. Does that include postage and everything?

Mr. CABLE. No. In New York postage, stationery, telephone, telegraph bills, and what traveling expenses is in addition. How many votes have you in your districts?

Mr. REED. About fifty-odd thousand.
Mr. CLEARY. Where is that district?

Mr. REED. In western New York. My district is the 43rd. It comprises the counties of Alleghany, Cattaraugus, and Chautauqua. There are some fifty-odd thousand votes.

Mr. CLEARY. In what counties?

Mr. REED. Allegany, Cattaraugus, and Chautauqua.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cable, I confess my lack of information on the Federal law, but can you tell the committee if it is the interpretation of the law that the items mentioned under discussion by Mr. Reed are not required to be filed?

Mr. REED. I did not either. Of course there is no great traveling in my particular district. About the only expense ordinarily would be gasoline and depreciation on an automobile. You are going around places there seeing people; that is all. There is some expenditure to committees or county committees of each county, but that is all.

The CHAIRMAN. In addition to the suggestion of Mr. Gifford, has it occurred to you, Mr. Cable, that in the committees of the State of Nevada, for instance, or Wyoming by this bill you are authorizing the expenditures of $10,000 not to exceed in any campaign $25,000 for United States Senator, there being two candidates in each of those States, which would produce, by going to the limit provided for in this bill, $50,000 in the aggregate while the one candidate or Representative would be restricted to $2,500. Of course that is not a vital question, because there must be a general rule, and you must have some rule, but have you thought of that?

Mr. REED. May I ask a question? There are some States that elect a Member of Congress at large. That is done in Ohio, is it not?

Mr. LozIER. Illinois does. Mr. Rathbone is elected.

Mr. REED. What situation would he be in?

Mr. CABLE. He would be entitled to 3 cents per vote for the entire total number of votes cast, but not to exceed $5,000.

Mr. REED. There are several States, and others may come in, where I do not think any of them spend that much, but they might do it in a heated campaign. Take a big State covering a lot of ground. He may have to circularize a great many people.

Mr. GIFFORD. In my State, Massachusetts, à candidate for Senator would have to circularize about 800,000 voters, at 3 cents a vote. That would be about $24.000. Now, if a United States Senator from Massachusetts can spend $24,000 at 3 cents, what will he have to spend in New York or Pennsylvania?

Mr. CABLE. They are entitled to $25,000 plus whatever it costs to circularize the State.

Mr. GIFFORD. Plus?

Mr. CABLE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that a provision of your bill?

Mr. CABLE. This bill amends the two sections of the law, 5 and 8. The CHAIRMAN. I wish to apologize to this committee for not having copies of the Federal statutes, and I will get them. We will not finish the consideration of this bill this morning. We will have them at the next meeting. If they are not otherwise available to the members of the committee, we will send for them.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to inject something outside the immediate discussion, but I am embarrassed this morning as on every morning we have a meeting. The Claims Committee meets at 10.30. That gives me a leeway of 30 minutes. I am interested in this committee and this legislation before it, but there are claims over there for soldiers and different ones that are important, and I have to try to be in both places. I wonder if there is any other time when we would not clash.

The CHAIRMAN. The matter has been taken up. The committee and the chairman appreciate your desire to be present and we understand the value of your presence here. If such an arrangement can be worked out, it will be taken up and we will excuse you.

Mr. REED. I will go and I will take this bill with me. I want to give some study to it.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a very important measure, we think.

Mr. REED. We have an important claim that will come up this morning about a soldier, and I am sorry I will have to go.

Mr. CABLE. I have three committee meetings this morning. The CHAIRMAN. The point I raised was not an objection to the hill, but I wondered if you have in your mind the framing of an amendment that might meet the situation or do you think it is necessary? It is merely an incident to the general situation.

Mr. CABLE. Do you mean to show clearly these expendituresThe CHAIRMAN. In relation to the expenditures in the small States and the larger States, as mentioned by Mr. Gifford, where expenditures on account of population would be much greater.

Mr. CABLE. In New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, or any big State a man running for the Senate could spend $25,000; then, if there was no limitation by State law he could spend thousands of dollars under the Federal act for the purpose of stationery, stamps, traveling expenses, telegraph and telephone bill, so if you wanted to circularize the whole State, and the State law did not prohibit it, he could send a letter out to every voter in addition to $25,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it seems to meet that objection. It is to my satisfaction.

In

Mr. CLEARY. Does that apply just the same to Congressmen? Mr. CABLE. Yes; only the limit for a Congressman is $5,000. your State where you have no limit, you could expend-how many votes have you in your district?

Mr. CLEARY. About 60,000.

Mr. CABLE. You could spend about $1,800, and then you could spend just as much more for letter and stamps, telegrams, telephone bills.

Mr. CLEARY. Newspapers?

Mr. CABLE. And traveling expenses.

Mr. CLEARY. Newspapers?

Mr. CABLE. No.

(Informal discussion followed which the reporter was directed not to incorporate in the record.)

Mr. CABLE. It says he may pay from his own personal fund, without being subject to the provision of this act, for the purpose of personal expenses for his traveling, for his stationery, postage, telegraph, and telephone service. That is not very clear. It is my construction, that a man, if he had no State limitation, as to the amount, need not include such expenses within the Federal limitations.

Mr. GIFFORD. I can well understand we ought to get jurisdiction over the State, but it may lead, if expended in two or more Statesthat does not imply limitation; if it is spent in only one State we do not come under this act.

The CHAIRMAN. Where does that reference occur, Mr. Gifford? Mr. GIFFORD. Not in that bill; in the law.

Mr. CLEARY. We ought to have a copy of that.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, we should have those copies here. I expressed my regrets to the committee a moment ago. I think maybe, Mr. Gifford, the fact that these committees are composed of members resident and representative of two or more States would give the Federal law control of their activities, would it not?

Mr. CABLE. May I interrupt?

Mr. GIFFORD. Yes.

Mr. CABLE. In my bill, page 3, lines 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23. I have it this way:

An amount equal to 3 cents per vote for the total number of votes cast for all candidates for said office, at the last general or special election in which an election was held for said office which said candidate seeks.

Mr. CLEARY. Now you say 3 cents per vote for the total number of votes cast for all candidates. Suppose there were three candidates.

Mr. CABLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. CLEARY. That would be a cent apiece for each of them.
Mr. CABLE. No, sir.

Mr. CLEARY. Should not it be each candidate?

Mr. CABLE. Take Republicans, Democrats, and Socialists; add their votes together and multiply by 3 cents. That is the amount those candidates running for that office may expend.

Mr. CLEARY. How would you apply that law to your particular district, and to your activities?

Mr. CABLE. Well, out in my State we have State limitations, which includes everything and that would take precedence over a Federal

act.

Mr. GIFFORD. Would it?

Mr. CABLE. I think it would, if the State limited us, as it does to $2.000, then we would not dare spend more than that or we would be violating the State law.

Mr. GIFFORD. A State can make it less, but it can not extend it or make it more.

Mr. CABLE. That is my idea.

Mr. LOZIER. That is right.

Mr. CABLE. The State is interested in an election, too. This act would not apply where the State had already acted, and the limitation was smaller than the Federal, but there are so many States where there are no limitations, or no law at all, and we ought to have some limitations, especially for Senators.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that right? I believe under the Constitution that the provision which makes the House of Representatives of the Congress the judge of the eligibilities of its Members would run in opposition to a State statute, and would nullify it to the extent that the difference between the sum fixed by the Federal statutes is more than the sum fixed by the State law; Mr. Lozier and Mr. Gifford, you men are lawyers, and know about it.

Mr. GIFFORD. I am not a lawyer, but in each case where in the Federal Government activities, the State can make the amount less but can not increase the amount. I have had several cases where a Federal law has been enacted; for instance, certain activities like laws in relation to migratory birds, and the State can make the limit shorter, but can not extend it.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that, Mr. Gifford, but in a law that relates to the election of the membership of the National Legislature, would it apply?

Mr. CABLE. In the present section 8

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me. Just this one word; that is, the law which proposes to regulate Federal elections-it has nothing to do with the election of any other officer except the officers of the Government of the United States, the Members of Congress, the two branches.

Mr. CABLE. A man may be guilty of a crime under a city ordinance. State law, or Federal law, and you might try him on all three violations; if the State would say that you can spend $2,000 to run for Congress, and if you violate that law, you are subject to a fine, I think. If you spend more than that, even if the Federal Government said you could, you still could be tried under the State act.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this question before it escapes my mind. If the State board of Kansas shall issue a certificate of