5. GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA AND POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS

Another problem that will no doubt come before the committee is the propaganda carried on by the various Government agencies in connection with the projects under their direction. Much of it is necessary public information or for educational purposes, but it can be deflected to political use.

The Government propaganda has grown so vast as Government operations have expanded, that I am at a loss to say what to do about it. To the extent that it rests upon the blurred line between legitimate education and information and plain propaganda, perhaps a code of ethics may serve to make the distinction clearer, and would enable the public to weigh the dangers of abusing the public service for political advantage. But it is a slender reed at best.

6. DEFAMATORY AND SCURRILOUS LITERATURE

As to the problems of defamatory and scurrilous literature, I suggest that the committee might examine the present effectiveness of the laws of libel and slander with the object of making the courts more effective agencies in these matters. In past years I have been advised many times by counsel that public men have little or no protection under these laws. They have stated that court decisions have practically reduced possible damages to pecuniary loss only. Public men can seldom prove such amounts. Successful verdicts, with only nominal awards, are neither vindication nor a preventive. In fact, public interpretation of nominal damages is that they are a condemnation. At one time (and still in England) heavy sums were collectible in moral damage from. slander, libel, and untruthful defamation, generally.

I greatly doubt the validity of any attempt to prevent untruthful statements, smears, or scurrilous publications except through actions in the courts lest it jeopardize the fundamentals of free speech and free press. However, if the laws of libel and slander are to be tightened, then some check should be placed upon their use for intimidation. It might be provided that plaintiffs shall proceed at once with suits, that on failure to do so or failure of verdict, they should be liable for double or treble the defendant's costs.

CONCLUSION

In the last analysis, no law will substitute for ethical standards applied as a matter of course by individuals in their daily conduct of the public business. There is a dangerous weakening of morality and of ethical standards in public life generally, the very area in which we should expect to find integrity and leadership on high principle. Without improvement in the minds and hearts of men, law and institutions are not enough to prevent deterioration in political behavior. And the people cannot be blamed if the bad example of men in public life leads to public toleration of corruption and aubse.

Yours faithfully,

HERBERT HOOVER.

APRIL 2, 1952.

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMORANDUM RE FEDERAL ELECTION LAWS-SUGGESTIONS FOR

REMEDIAL LEGISLATION

INTRODUCTION

Suggestions for improvement of Federal election laws have been the subject of study and investigation by the Senate Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections. The principal proposals are set out below, with appropriate topical headings: 1. Definitions

A. Political committee.-Redefine this term to include all committees which receive contributions or expend funds to influence the nomination or election of candidates for Federal office. Experience has shown that committees influencing the nomination or election of Federal officers operate within the bounds of one State and are not branches or subsidiaries of political organizations of national scope.

B. Elections. This term should be redefined to include primary campaigns and nominating conventions of a political party. For effective publicity on

campaign receipts and expenditures, the act should cover primary campaigns as well as general elections. Recent Supreme Court decisions, particularly United States v. Classic (313 U. S. 299 (1941)), have confirmed the power of Congress in this field.

C. Candidate.-Redefine this term to include individual whose name is presented at an election for election as President or Vice President.

2. Organization of bipartisan commission

Establish a Fair Elections Commission of three or five members to be chosen on a bipartisan basis, this Commission to be given power to investigate and report on complaints filed or upon its own initiative, in matters relating to: (1) The use of defamatory and scurrilous literature in a campaign.

(2) The acts of a candidate or his authorized agents through the use of composite pictures or other devices, and without justification creating and exploiting doubt about the loyalty to his country of an opposing candidate. (3) Excessive expenditures.

This Commission would have the power to issue statements in or during congressional campaigns, appraising or criticizing campaign methods; could also serve as a permanent investigating body to which all election contests would be referred for investigation and recommendation to the appropriate body in the House or Senate.

Alternative proposal.-Establish a standing Senatorial Committee on Privileges and Elections by appropriate amendment to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (Public Law 601, 79th Cong., 2d sess.). This committee would be charged with the affirmative duty of observing and reporting on elections' practices while campaigns are in progress.

3. Responsibility of candidate for expenditures and literature

Center responsibility for the campaign in the candidate himself by making him responsible for the acts of his agents, both with respect to campaign contributions and expenditures and the issuance of campaign literature. Specifically: (1) Make it unlawful for anyone to make expenditures on behalf of a candidate in excess of $500 without registering as a political agent. (2) Make it necessary that candidate approve registration and accept responsibility for filing reports of contributions and expenditures.

(3) Require statement on all campaign literature that it has been approved by the candidate or his campaign manager.

(4) Adopt Senate rules for election contests and place upon the candidate the burden of proof that he had no knowledge of the unlawful acts of his campaign manager or any authorized or designated political agent.

4. Prohibition against use of composites

Outlaw all composite pictures in campaigns designed to misrepresent or distort the facts regarding any candidate. This consideration should be given to excluding all types of "composites" whether they be newspaper pictures, voice recordings, motion pictures, or any other means or medium of conveying a misrepresenting composite impression.

5. Revision upward or elimination of limitations upon candidates' expenditures In view of the extensive rise in the national price level and consequent decline in dollar value, and in view of technical developments in television and radio, total population growth, coupled with major population shifts, the legitimate costs of campaigning in many districts have considerably increased. Ceiling limitations governing contributions to and expenditures by candidates should be raised to correspond to the existing higher price level. In arriving at a new formula and to assure greater flexibility than at present provided for, the size of the electorate as well as the size of geographical area in which the campaign takes place should be taken into account.

The suggested alternatives are:

(1) Eliminate ceilings altogether.

(2) Raise the limits for expenditures by senatorial candidates and committees. Change the present unrealistic figures of $10,000 to $25,000 for even the largest State, to a minimum of $25,000; then permit 10 cents per vote cast for office in last election for that office, until limit reaches $500,000. (Tighten present Corrupt Practices Act to make all expenses chargeable against this figure.)

NOTE. To be effective, any Federal law relating to ceilings on candidates' expenditures should supersede applicable State laws.

A. Financial reports:

(1) Amend section 307 of the Corrupt Practices Act so as to require that all contributions and expenditures made on behalf of a candidacy be reported by the candidate himself to the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate.

(2) Revise form presently used for reporting contributions by candidates in order to assure uniform reporting, listing contributors alphabetically together with their adresses.

(3) Impose affirmative obligation upon officers with whom reports are filed to inspect, analyze, and make periodic reports.

6. Revision upward or elimination of ceiling limitations placed upon national political committees

In 1940 the Hatch Act was amended to limit contributions to and expenditures by national political committees to an aggregate of not more than $3,000,000 in any calendar year. The provision has demonstrably failed in its purpose to limit over-all expenditure on behalf of a particular party's ticket in a national campaign for Federal offices. Since $3,000,000 is an inadequate sum with which to conduct a national campaign, the main responsibility for raising and expending funds has drifted away from the official national party committees and gotten into the hands of a plethora of independent, State, and local committees. This has served to confuse the public and defeat the existing publicity features of the law.

It has therefore been suggested that (1) the ceiling should be removed or (2) the limits should be raised to $12,000,000 or $15,000,000 and that all satellite organizations be included in this total figure. Such satellite organizations should also be required to register with the permission of the national party organizations in the same manner as political agents register for candidates. The parent organization should also be responsible for the reporting of total expenditures and for the character of literature, broadcasts, etc.

7. Individual contributions

Require all individuals or groups making a contribution of $100 or more to the campaign funds of a candidate or a political party to be reported by the contributor as well as the candidate or political party receiving the contribution.

Amend section 608 of the Hatch Act so as to make prohibition against contributions of over $5,000 applicable to all committees, State and local as well as National.

8. Federal gift-tax enforcement

Under Internal Revenue Bureau interpretations, Federal gift-tax provisions are applicable to political contributions. Amend the code so as to make its provisions specifically applicable to such contributions and strengthen enforcement provisions.

9. Filing requirements

Provide for local publicity of contributions to and expenditures by every political committee operating within a single State by requiring the prompt filing with the clerk of the United States district court of the district in which that committee's headquarters is located of a duplicate copy of the statement of contributions and expenditures required to be filed in Washington.

Require the filing in Washington of all literature dealing with the election of national officers before such literature is circulated. (The central repository for such literature should be the Fair Elections Commission or the permanent Elections Committee, supra.)

10. State or county party organizations

Require State or county party organizations and central committees to file report of all money paid directly to candidates for Senate and House.

Further, all other money not specifically allocated and spent for individuals on the ticket must be reported en bloc and the total of this unallocated expenditure should be divided by rule of thumb as follows: One-third to Senate and House candidates, onet-hird to Governor and State ticket, and one-third to county and minor officers.

11. Recomendations for Senate election contest rules

(1) Establish procedures for the contesting of elections providing for: (a) Time within which contest may be filed.

etc.

(b) Notice of such contest, setting forth the grounds for such contest. (c) Time and place of hearing, attendance of witnesses, attorney's fees,

(2) Make false and malicious misrepresentations by a candidate or his authorized or designated political agent, including the creation and exploitation of doubt, without justification, about the loyalty to his country of an opposing candidate, grounds for refusal to seat a Senator-elect or for expelling a Senator. (3) The question of unseating a Senator for acts committeed in a senatorial election should not be limited to the candidates in such elections. Any sitting Senator, regardless of whether he is a candidate in the election himself, should be subject to expulsion by action of the Senate, if it finds such Senator engaged in practices and behavior that make him, in the opinion of the Senate, unfit to hold the position of United States Senator.

(4) Provide that any Senator under investigation by a Senate committee under recommendation (3), above, may petition the Senate for a vote on the disqualification of any member of the investigating committee on the grounds of prejudice, provided that he obtains the signature to and support of his petition by 24 Senators. The same right and procedure shall be extended to any Senator proposing the expulsion of another Senator under recommendation (3), above. No Senator shall be disqualified unless a majority of the members of the Senate in a roll call vote shall vote in favor of the disqualification of the Senator.

Senator GUY M. GILLETTE,

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, April 18, 1952.

229 Senate Office Building,

Washington 25, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR GILLETTE: This is to acknowledge your letter of April 4 reporting the dates on which hearings were to be held by the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections on the subject of proposed changes in the Federal election laws.

I am deeply interested in any changes in election laws and with this letter I am sending you a memorandum outlining my suggestions. I trust that you can include this memorandum in your printed hearings.

Yours sincerely,

THEODORE FRANCIS GREEN.

PROPOSED SUGGESTIONS FOR REMEDIAL LEGISLATION IMPROVING FEDERAL ELECTION

STATUTES

I am indeed happy to reply to your invitation of April 4 requesting suggestions for improvement of our present Federal election statutes which have been the subject of study and investigation by the committee of which you are chairman.

I have had an abiding and continuing intérest in this subject matter, particularly since serving as chairman of the Senate committee which conducted similar investigations and studies in 1944-45. I am particularly impressed with the specific proposals which your committee has outlined as possible amendments to the, existing election laws for the reason that many of them are identical with those which I had the honor to recommend in an official report to the Senate in 1945 following the conclusion of our committee work. I trust you can indulge me for the moment to state with some pardonable pride that the continued demand from universities and institutions of learning throughout the country moved the Senate Rules Committee to order a reprint of our committee report within recent weeks. I know that you will agree it is rather remarkable that there should be such a consistent interest in the report of the 1944-45 committee, but this is due unquestionably in large part to the fact that the public generally is interested in seeing those recommendations carried into effect. Accordingly, I wish to not only congratulate your committee for the splendid work which it has already done, but also to express the hope that

it may achieve the result which has been so long sought by committees in the past.

I know that the committee and its staff have thoroughly reviewed the report to which I refer and, therefore, I propose to treat only in a very brief manner some of the topics which your committee has outlined with the thought that the facts in support of my views can be found not only in the report of my committee, but also in the reports of other senatorial and congressional committees, including the large body of factual data which has been so ably collected and marshalled by the present committee, of which you are chairman. I note, at the outset, under your point 1, that it has been suggested that the term "political committee” be redefined so as to include all committees which receive contributions or expend funds to influence the nomination or election of candidates for Federal office. This is a sound and appropriate recommendation which is justified by the pattern of political committee activities for at least the last decade. You will find that such a recommendation was advanced by the Green committee in its report to the Senate. Our report in that year compiled a list of several hundred independent, nonparty organizations which were active on both the Democratic and Republican side. It was our finding at that time that this number represented only a proportion of the sum total of such organizations which were actively engaged in the 1944 election campaigns. It was felt that such nonparty agencies were taking over the functioning of the traditional political organizations to an increasing extent with the result that the problem of control was becoming increasingly complicated. It was found that some of these organizations asserted that their activities were "educational" as distinguished from "political." And, therefore, they were under no obligation whatever to file any financial reports with the appropriate Federal or State officials.

I have always felt that this problem is definitely tied in with another problem which is listed in a separate portion of your topical outline, namely, point 6, which proposes a revision upward or elimination of ceiling limitations placed upon national political committees. Accordingly, I shall treat very briefly, if I may, with that subject matter at this point because of the interrelationship of the two problems. As I have stated, it has been my view that before the Hatch Act limitations became effective in 1940 the birth and growth of independent party and nonparty organizations would have been discouraged for the simple reason that the traditional political agencies of both parties would have no basic reason for the decentralization of the collection and expenditure of campaign funds. Under the present ceiling limitation of $3,000,000 which is certainly not an adequate sum with which to conduct a national campaign in these days, your committee has noted again that the responsibility for the collection and expenditure of the campaign funds has drifted from the official committees of both parties into the hands of what you refer to as a "plethora of independent State and local committees."

Under the present circumstances these committees are not only condoned and accepted but are actually inspired and promoted by the official political organizations of both parties. It has been my consistent view since my experience with the 1944 investigation that one of the most unfortunate effects of the Hatch Act has been this decentralization of responsibility for the collection and distribution of money in presidential campaigns. The result has been a natural one, namely, the decentralization of responsibility for reporting amounts so spent. And publicity-pitiless publicity-is the answer to proper controls on campaign expenditures.

It has been my view that if you give the public the information they will readily draw their own conclusions as to whether or not a party or a candidate is seeking to corrupt the electorate through undue expenditures of money. Consequently, I believe that we should encourage rather than discourage our regularly organized national political committees to collect and distribute the chief part of all moneys expended in presidential campaigns or Federal elections because I feel that in those offices you will find more responsible, honest, and upright persons who will comply with the reporting provisions of our Corrupt Practices Act. I believe it can be stated for the record that there has never been any serious question raised within recent memory as to the fulfillment of all the reporting requirements of our Corrupt Practices Act by either of our great parties acting through its national political committees. In conclusion, therefore, I again recommend to the Senate that the ceilings imposed by the Hatch Act limiting contributions to and expenditures by national political committees