The loophole in this law, which exempts State and local committees from the application of the act, actually nullifies the congressional intent to limit contributions in support of Federal candidates. In effect the law restricts only the channels through which such contributions can be made. Many complaints have been received charging the violation of this section. However, investigations of every complaint have failed to reveal a single instance where the statute had in fact been violated. There seems to be a popular misconception of the reach of this law because in all of the complaints alleging a violation, it has been found that the contributions have been made to local or State committees, which are not covered by the act. This section should be extended to prohibit, directly or indirectly, contributions in excess of $5,000 in support of any Federal candidate, whether or not the contribution is made to a local or State committee. Section 20 of the act 1 provides that no political committee shall receive contributions or make expenditures exceeding $3,000,000 in any one calendar year. This section adopts the definitions of the Federal Corrupt Practice Act and therefore applies to general and special elections only. The language and exceptions in this section so obscure its purpose as to nullify its limiting provisions and provide many loopholes to evade the apparent reach of the law. By the language of the statute no political committee shall receive or expend more than $3,000,000 in any one year. But there is no law limiting the number of committees that may campaign for a single candidate or party nominees. Therefore, to be effective the definition of "political committee" should be extended to include all committees engaged in promoting the nomination or election of candidates or presidential and vice presidential electors, and second all political committees, other than the national organization of a political party, should be required to obtain written authorization from a candidate before accepting contributions or making expenditures on his behalf. In addition either the ceiling on collections should be substantially increased, which would cover the total of all collections and expenditures, and the candidates held accountable for excess expenditures or the restrictions on expenditures should be entirely removed. AN ACT PROHIBITING THE PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTION CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS NOT CONTAINING NAMES OF PERSONS RESPONSIBLE THEREFOR, 1944, ASAMENDED 15 Section 1 of this statute prohibits the willful publication or distribution of any card, pamphlet, circular, poster, advertisement, writing, or other statement relating to or concerning any person who has publicly declared his intention to seek any Federal elective office in a primary, general or special election which does not contain the names of the persons responsible for the publication or distribution. The prohibitions of this act are a radical departure from previous legislation affecting Federal elections and it presents new and additional problems of interpretation and enforcement. Since the act prohibits only the willful publication and distribution of political material, the prosecutor in addition to proving the violation must also prove the willful intent of the offender. Since the enactment of this statute in 1944 the complaints charging the violation of unsponsored political literature are more numerous than all other election irregularities. Violations are not openly committed. Publication of unsponsored literature is usually committed under cover and through false fronts. Investigations have failed in most instances to disclose the names of the persons responsible. The facts concerning the alleged violation of this section on a State-wide basis, involving charges against both major political parties were recently presented to a Federal grand jury in one of the Central States. In returning a "no bill" the jury reported: "The grand jury's attention has been directed to the fact that publications have been distributed by members of both major political parties containing statements regarding candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States and for the offices of Senator and Representative to the Congress of the United States which do not contain the name of the persons, associations, com 14 18 U. S. C. 609. 16 18 U. S C. 612. mittees and corporations responsible for the publication and distribution of the writings, nor the names of the officers of such association, committee or corporation. "It is noted that this is an act of Congress enacted in 1948, and the evidence disclosed that few people knew of its existence, and while the grand jury realized that ignorance of the law is no defense, yet since the act of Congress requires that in order to merit criminal prosecution the acts must be willfully done and since the grand jury has found that in the publications called to its attention the acts were not willfully done by the members of either political party, no true bills on this subject are returned herewith, but it is the recommendation of the grand jury that complete publicity be given to the existence of this law and widespread warnings given of the penal sanctions which the law carries, particularly to printing firms and those engaged in reproducing writings for others so that when any proposed copy is handed to a printer he may call the existence of the law to the attention of his prospective customer so that every effort can be made to comply with the law, thus if the law is complied with in the publication of matter concerning such candidates, the offense of distribution of such publications will be eliminated." The only indictment which resulted in a conviction charging a violation of this section was returned in the case of United States v. Katherine Stankard, 1951 (not reported), United States District Court, Connecticut. In that case the defendant printed a political message on the back of a postal card, which was sent through the mails, recommending the election of candidates for the United States Senate and the House of Representatives without revealing the name of the sponsor. Upon a plea of nolo contendere, the defendant was found guilty and given a suspended sentence. An indictment under this section was returned in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, Omaha division, on May 7, 1952, in the case of United States v. Clarence L. Calabria, charging the defendant with the willful publication and distribution of unsponsored political literature in the 1950 general election. Calabria was arraigned on May. 15 and entered a plea of not guilty. The legislative history of the act would indicate a congressional intent to implement the Federal Corrupt Practices Act and to provide that all political literature in a Federal election must be sponsored. The public has a right to know the names of persons responsible for political writings concerning candidates for Federal office, and anyone who willfully fails to subscribe to his political statements in violation of the law should be punished. CONCLUSION The existing laws, developed by piecemeal legislation, and characterized as a "hodgepodge of inconsistency" and confusion are hopelessly inadequate to cope with our modern political scheme. The ceiling on expenditures in congressional campaigns, fixed in 1925, are obsolete and wholly inadequate for present-day activities. The original requirements relating to the filing of financial statements, with its gaping loopholes, have never been strengthened. The definition of key words in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act has permitted sectional advantage and nullified many desirable features of the law. The law lacks cohesion and there is no responsible authority to enforce compliance with the financial-statements requirements. The election laws should be completely revised and correlated in the light of actual experience and based on present conditions. The limitation on expenditures should be eliminated or realistically increased to permit modern campaign techniques, including the use of radio and television. The law requiring financial statements should apply to primaries and to nominating conventions for Federal office, as well as to general elections. A permanent commission should be created to develop standards of behavior, analyze reports to be filed, provide adequate publicity, follow up delinquents, and recommend improvements to maintain an effective election law. JOHN P. MOORE, Esq., AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, Counsel, Senate Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MOORE: As I mentioned on the telephone today, we would like to convey to you our views on the staff memorandum of April 2, suggesting remedial legislation for Federal election laws. Our board of directors considered the contents of the memorandum at its meeting of June 9. It tabled a discussion of those sections of the memorandum relating to expenditures. The board felt that only two other aspects of the memorandum concern civil liberities. (1) The ACLU opposes the creation of a bipartisan commission to make the investigation suggested in the memorandum. Such investigations would be entirely of speech. Even though such a commission would not have enforcement powers, it seems clear to us that its activities would inevitably have a censorial effect. Investigations of speech consistently result in some trepidation on the part of those who do the speaking, and we believe that such an indirect interference with the exercise of freedom of speech protected by the first amendment would be most unwise and probably unconstitutional. Indeed, the United States Court of Appeals, for the District of Columbia Circuit, indicated only last April 29 in the case of Rumely v. United States of America that, except where national security is involved, Congress cannot authorize investigations into attempts to influence public opinion by speech. True, there may be shoddy campaign practices, but this is one of the risks of our democratic way of life. It is up to the opposition candidate to expose improper tactics; it is not and cannot be the function of Congress to do so in any such generalized fashion as this. The question of whether or not a particular Senator should be seated as a result of what the Senate considers to be improper excesses, is one for the ad hoc judgment of the Senate. (2) The ACLU opposes any blanket prohibition against the use of any type of composite. There is a particular danger in the proposed outlawing of composites designed to misrepresent or distort the facts. When a composite is labeled as such or is readily identifiable as such, such a blanket prohibition would have a particularly deleterious effect in that it might result in severe fear by those whose business it is to make composites. To take but one example, a newscast which features live reporting might be unwilling to run the risk of being accused of misrepresenting the facts about a candidate by its selection of particular parts of a speech for reproduction. Or, to take another example, Ed Murrow's CBS program "See It Now" might be continually hampered were a candidate to contend that he had been unfairly treated in a showing of various film clips of his speeches or activities. But even where a composite is not labeled or readily identifiable as a composite, we believe that the contemplated prohibition would be a violation of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom merely for truth; it is not the business of the Government to separate truth from falsehood for us. This again is the task of the opposition candidates. Deception is frequently practiced upon the American people by candidates for political office. Such deception cannot be too strongly condemned, but freedom of speech means freedom even for political deception. When once the courts or the Congress attempt to distinguish for the people what is truth and what is deception, a good part of our freedom of speech will be lost. Our board will shortly discuss the sections of the staff memorandum relating to expenditures, and I will be pleased to advise you and the members of the subcommittee as to the position, if any, that the ACLU takes on this point. With kindest personal regards, I am, Cordially, |