As far as control of it is concerned by legislation, I concede it to be tremendously dangerous and that it interferes with the democratic principle, but I certainly urge this one thing. I have looked with a good deal of fear and a good deal of concern on the fact that we are getting a double standard in our control of public media. Whether that is an inspired standard or not-and I represent some newspapers, too-I do not know. But there seems to be a double standard of putting a holier-than-thou attitude on the part of the printed press, magazines-one standard for them-and trying to establish a standard of purity beyond all belief for telecommunications, and it is absolutely unfair.

Television and radio are new and modern media. They are difficult to handle, but they are just as much accepted and desired by the public as any printed page. I do not think a standard should be imposed on us that would not be accepted by the press or by the magazines, or by the book publishers. It is expecting too much, putting too great a handicap and a restriction, and it is defeating the purpose and strength of radio and television as media of public opinion.

Senator GILLETTE. I think you have been discussing a very important factor in this thing. The problem that Senator Hennings has discussed here-and we have all discussed this thing-of correcting this evil without interfering with the freedom of expression is a very definite one and a very difficult one. But a newspaper can refuse advertising, a newspaper can refuse a news comment or a news story if they think it might render them subject to a libel suit. They have the right to do that. And by law to place this other medium in a position where they cannot do the same thing, they must take it and cannot censor it, is discriminatory to the furthest extent.

I will tell you what I am going to do. We have no member of our subcommittee-and I say that in all kindness to the other members who are lawyers—but none who has a clearer grasp of this particular problem than Senator Hennings-

Senator HENNINGS. I must disclaim that, Mr. Chairman, and yield to our chairman, who has given this matter a great deal of thought and has had vast experience in it.

Senator GILLETTE. I am going to appoint Senator Hennings, in collaboration with the counsel, to look into this particular field and explore the possibility of corrective legislation that will at least place these media on the same basis, or a comparable basis, with other agencies like the newspaper agency.

Mr. FELLOWS. Senator, I do not want to prolong the deliberation, but I feel moved to make one observation which is very apropos of any investigation that your committee makes. The colonel stated that DuMont is taking the position of not permitting a Communist candidate on the air. I doubt that very many radio interests, or hardly any radio stations, will undertake that position. He stated, I think quite clearly, that it was an illegal position because it specifically is a completely illegal position to take.

In other words, under 315 if there is a duly qualified candidate from. the Communist Party, and the Communist Party is a duly qualified party in the State, you are required to give him time. If you avoid that in any way, you are on an illegal basis and taking a calculateď risk.

Not many broadcasters in the country, not many radio interests, could possibly stack up against an outright, absolute, willful violation of the act as written. So I do not think you can expect very much support throughout the industry for the attitude which DuMont is willing to take.

I am neither condemning nor approving their attitude in any way, shape, or manner.

Senator GILLETTE. When the colonel made that statement, the same thought went through my mind.

Mr. ROBERTS. It is a calculated risk, because you have to consider the fact that the FCC can refute your license or deny your license. I had to take the calculated risk. I have the decision of the Supreme Court that the Communist Party has sponsored and inspired attacks upon our Constitution, and it is a calculated risk we are prepared to take.

If the Commission wants to take our licenses away because we do not choose to place on the air Communist propaganda, I am afraid it is going to have to just take them away.

Senator GILLETTE. It is a risk that you ought not to have to take, calculated or otherwise.

Mr. ROBERTS. That is the point.

Mr. FELLOWS. It is a risk that we ought not to have to take.

Senator HENNINGS. Mr. Chairman, it would be further complicated in a State such as mine, for example, where on our ballot in November there appears the Gerald L. K. Smith party, the Christian Nationalists, I believe they call themselves; the Prohibition_ticket; the Socialist Labor ticket; the Communist ticket; and the Republican and Democratic ticket.

Of course in a way Gerald L. K. Smith's doctrine is almost as offensive to what some of us believe certainly, if not as much so; it is in the same area certainly, depending upon one's own predilections and views about such things-but just as dangerous as the Communist area.

Mr. FELLOWS. I am not a lawyer, Senator, but it comes down to a matter of basic legislation; and if you discriminate against any one group, then you invite discrimination against any group wherever at any time.

Mr. ROBERTS. There are some differences. For example, the Supreme Court decisions are not applicable to Gerald L. K. Smith at the moment or any of the lunatic fringes. The other thing is that within the rules as is indicated in the memorandum which you have, there is the indication that the station can accept or decline party representation on the basis of sufficiency of public interest.

If 20 people get together and call themselves a party and they say, "I want the same amount of time as the Democratic and Republican Parties," the station still has the right to determine that that is not a matter of sufficient public interest.

Senator HENNINGS. Again, Colonel, in 1856 when the Republican Party was born and nominated John C. Fremont, the Whig Party was on its way out, and no one thought the Republican Party was going to amount to very much, and it did not until 1860.

In that year we had Bell running and Breckinridge and Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln. You cannot always determine, even though at its birth, a party may not seem to be sufficiently widely

representative. In fact, it may be, but you could not tell by the preceding election that it was a party on its way up and one that was destined to, within as short a time as between 1856 and 1860, attract many voters-although Lincoln, of course, did not have the majority. Senator GILLETTE. It could be an incipiently great party. Senator HENNINGS. So that is just another little facet.

Mr. ROBERTS. I might add, having examined the texts only recently, that innumerable newspapers stated that Abraham Lincoln and his party were engaged in the destruction of the United States and in opposition to the Constitution of the United States, and under the same theories they would have been out.

I agree entirely with Mr. Fellows in the respect that the burden being placed upon the communications industry is an unfair one in that we are obliged to make a series of decisions that are not private decisions; they are public decisions. Some classification of

what constitutes our obligation to serve is needed, and it is needed very badly. But in the absence of it you have to make some decisions and go ahead.

Senator GILLETTE. Gentlemen, again I say we are deeply grateful to you for your help. The discussion has been of real value to us. I have already appointed the Senator from Missouri. I know he has not much time to devote to it, but he must take time and devote to it.

The committee will stand in recess at the call of the Chair.

(Thereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee recessed subject to the call of the Chair.)

APPENDIX

The Honorable GUY M. GILLETTE,

NEW YORK, N. Y., September 28, 1951.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR: I have your note of September 4 in which you ask my views upon this point:

66* * * there is a vital need for corrective or remedial legislation to make our elections to these Federal offices more nearly a fair and honest expression of the will of the electorate. We have been concerned over the lack of accountability over huge expenditures of money in these campaigns. We have also been greatly disturbed over the expanded use of defamatory and scurrilous literature."

I am glad that your committee is taking a strong interest in these problems. They have a vital bearing upon public confidence in our political system.

I do not have the facilities for the investigation which these subjects merit; nor can I presume to have the legal experience to draft actual legislation which the problems involve. I can, however, make some suggestions of areas which might be explored, such as: (1) The extension of Federal law to cover primaries for Federal offices; (2) the reorganization of the existing law as to financial limitations on campaign expenditures: (3) the need of better definitions in these laws; (4) the political activities of civil servants; (5) the Government propaganda and political campaigns; (6) the use of defamatory and scurrilous literature."

1. EXTENSION OF FEDERAL LAW TO COVER PRIMARIES FOR FEDERAL OFFICES

It seems to me that one deficiency in our Federal election laws is that they do not extend to primaries for Federal offices. In many States primaries are equivalent to elections. In other States the primary is so closely a part of the whole election atmosphere as to amount to a part of a continuous political process. There are States which use the convention system and have no primaries.

While I would not have Federal laws take primaries dealing with Federal offices wholly out of the province of State control of party responsibility, I do think certain Federal laws regarding control of expenditures and safeguards against abusive or corrupt practices should be extended to cover such primaries. Where there are no primaries, there is little room for Federal action.

2. REORGANIZATION OF FINANCIAL LIMITATIONS ON CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES

I think it is fairly evident that the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1926, the Hatch Act of 1940, together with amendments and related legislation should be overhauled. Congressional committees following almost every election have turned up violations and evasions of these laws, or failure of the law to cover every part of the problem.

The ceiling limitations placed on expenditures should be reconsidered. These ceilings were fixed when the purchasing power of the dollar was nearly twice what it is today. In the meantime campaign methods have evolved from local to more and more a system of Nation-wide mass appeal. The ceilings were set when radio was less developed and television was not available at all. All of this results in a large increase in the cost of national political campaigns. For instance, with the increase in postage and mailing costs, a single letter to each potential voter in the Nation would cost more than the allowed expenditures for all the parties combined. Existing law does not take these changed conditions into account.

182

Without more information I am not prepared to say whether ceilings should I be lifted or how much. I suggest, however, that the committee explore a formula of expenditure limits in which geographical area and population are considered. These factors obviously affect the cost of mail, radio and television time, newspaper space rates, printing costs for literature, reasonable party operating expenses, and reasonable travel and personal allowances. By such a formula, ceilings would bear some realistic relation to modern conditions.

By maintaining unrealistic limitations on campaign expenditures, the law invites evasion. If the law seems adequate to compel accountability for direct expenditures by organized political parties and individual candidates, it is only because it permits loopholes through which greater expenditures can be made by persons and associations outside the law.

The proper control of expenditures of the regular political parties is not so difficult a problem as the expenditures of organizations, clubs, etc., under the heading "education," "information," etc. Yet very large sums are being used in such fashion to promote candidates or influence the trend of elections. These bodies can confuse the public and can defeat the control features of existing law. While the way must never be closed for our people to work in association for a particular candidate, for a political party, or for political ideas, there is no reason why these activities should not be required to identify themselves clearly, to report the source of their finances and the nature of their expenditures, and have the same published by public agencies, State or Federal, during a time period in which the force of public opinion could become effective.

Simultaneous with efforts to control campaign expenditures, it would be worth while to explore ways of reducing the total cost of campaigns. It might be possible to regulate the charges of radio and television and the time which should be given. Broadcasting is definitely charged with a public interest. This should be recognized in such matters of great public concern as national political campaigns.

3. DEFINITIONS

A part of the difficulties involved in lack of control of expenditures by “nonpolitical" organizations arises from the inadequate definitions in the existing law. It has been obvious in recent years that the definition of "political committee" in the Federal law is sufficiently ambiguous to permit associations to claim exemptions on the ground that their activities are solely "educational." Neither common sense nor political realities justify these claims. In the conditions in which such claims are made, they are pure deceptions.

The definition should be broadened to cover all bodies which receive contributions or expend funds bearing directly or indirectly upon the nomination or election of candidates for Federal office. Education on group interests and the relation of the candidates to these interests are inseparable parts of the political process. While such education is highly desirable and should never be discouraged, those providing it are not entitled to be exempt from any provisions designed to keep the electoral process fair, open, honest, and free from abuses.

The same is true of the definitions of "contributions" and "expenditures." Both provide loopholes for evasion of existing law. Not only should the nature of "contributions" and "expenditures" be accurately clarified, but their application should be extended beyond corporations and banks to labor organizations and all other committees, associations, and other bodies active in the political process.

4. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF CIVIL SERVANTS

The growth of Government activities and personnel has a relation to these problems. I do not need to state that the selection of civil employees by merit examination was established partly in order to eliminate their influence in Federal elections. Many exemptions have been made in the past few years. It would be of value to determine the proportion of the present over 2,200,000 Federal civil employees having actually passed the civil-service examinations before receiving their appointments.

Moreover, some Federal services such as postmasterships and some internalrevenue appointments have never been incorporated within civil-service requirements. Both to secure more merit and less politics, they should be placed under civil-service selection and the whole civil personnel should be selected in this fashion except policy officials.