In respect to raising the ceilings you would not, I gather, propose raising the ceilings of individual contributors.

Mr. BOYLE. No.

Senator MONRONEY. It is the general ceilings you are speaking of. Mr. BOYLE. That is correct, and particularly the ceilings applied to persons running for the Congress, the House and the Senate. I do not believe that a man can conduct a campaign for the House on the approximate limit of $2,500 or that a man can run and conduct his campaign for election as a Senator for the approximate ceiling set in the Corrupt Practices Act.

Senator MONRONEY. Yes. In considering these ceilings for Federal offices such as Congress and the Senate, do you have any figure in mind that would be realistic today? It would have to be based largely, as an attempt was made in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act to measure it, against the total population or against the total vote in the last election for that office.

Mr. BOYLE. Before I will answer that I want to consult our House Campaign Committee and our Senate Campaign Committee who of course have more direct actual experience. Any of our expenditures that we make from the National Committee to the House or Senate membership is directly through either the Senatorial Campaign Committee or the House Campaign Committee. So, I would not be prepared to answer that as to any definite figure or make any definite recommendation.

Senator MONRONEY. But you do feel then that the present limit on individual contributions is adequate; in other words, you do not want to lift the ceiling on how much one individual or one family can contribute?

Mr. BOYLE. I believe I covered this.

Senator MONRONEY. In your statement

Mr. BOYLE. Yes; where I say I do believe a person who is directly or indirectly contributing to a political party should be required to report that amount, because there are some families, say, where the aunt gives $5,900 and the son gives $5,000-and in one election recently, an 8-year-old baby gave $5,000 [laughter].

It is that kind of contribution that should be reported to some agency as determined by the Congress, and it is not only limited to a national committee but to other hidden committees.

I think that probably one of our most serious studies should be given to determine what would be a 'hidden committee,' and to this whole question of these hidden committees.

You could set up a committee with three people, and they could accept contributions and expend the money and they are still not under the direct party's control nor do they report as we are required by law to report to the Congress, to the House and the Senate, and of course also the financial committee of the Republican Party reports directly to the Congress and the Senate.

Now, prior to the Hatch Act of 1936, contributions were obtained to a great extent by the selling of advertising in the yearbook and such as that. At that time the financing of the party was not too difficult. But that was ended by the Hatch Act, which went into effect someplace in 1940, and the limit was set of $3,000,000 for a committee in a presidential year.

Now, that has led to this: instead of moneys coming into the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee, it has led to those funds being spread out to different types of unknown committees, unsponsored committees, and the activities of those committees are not at the present time being controlled by any particular law; they are running wild, and these committees have no real responsibility either to the national committee of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party.

Senator MONRONEY. It would be possible, would it not, without violating any law, for any individual contributor to make a $6,000 contribution? I believe it is-

Mr. BOYLE. $5,000.

Senator MONRONEY. A $5,000 contribution to the national committee and then to make a similar $5,000 contribution to each one of the 48 States?

Mr. BOYLE. Correct.

Senator MONRONEY. To the campaign committees.

Mr. BOYLE. Yes.

Senator MONRONEY. And then to contribute to each of the hundredodd ad hoc comittees that have been organized under various names and still be within the present law.

Mr. BOYLE. That is right; and there are many other purported educational and tax-exempt committees that have been set up for political purposes that hide behind the name "educational" that actually go out and are more viciously in the political field than either one of the major parties. That is another matter that I would say should come within the study of the committee.

Senator MONRONEY. Your view on it is that it is the ultimate purpose for which the money is being spent, rather than the title or the name of the organization to which the money is given.

Mr. BOYLE. That is right, and I believe that is one of the fundamental issues. This country has grown great with the two-party system. I believe in a strong, vigorous Republican Party and a strong and vigorous Democratic Party, and that the responsibility of Government should be assumed by two recognized fully functioning parties; and that gives the people a chance to choose which they want, and that is how our Government has grown up to what it is today. And the more we can center the responsibility into those parties the more we are going to continue to have the kind of government we have grown up under.

And I say when we take and allow these promiscuous committees to be set up-and I do not care whether they are companies or corporations or any other phase of identity in the United States-and to use money and to use devices to affect the political vote in a political campaign, that they then should be identified as a political activity and a political committee, and then when in whatever way it is possible it is determined they are a political committee of some kind they should come under the same restrictions that the two major parties come under.

Senator MONRONEY. One of the ways to accomplish that purpose of cracking down on the money being spent is the suggestion you made here and which the subcommittee made, a requirement that the individual who contributes is also under some responsibility to report his contribution.

Mr. BOYLE. That is right.

Senator MONRONEY. As well as the organization which receives it. Mr. BOYLE. That is true, but still keeping in mind that you really identify some of these committees that still disclaim they are political committees, which would allow them not to report.

I am fully in favor of reporting all those large contributions and the different contributors, of course. That is what I advocate and this committee advocates strongly. But, to obtain that kind of report, another thing that has to be done is to identify these outside commitees that say they are not political committees and where the people in them say they do not have to report.

Senator MONRONEY. You made one suggestion in your statement about encouraging voting and increasing the numbers who voted at election time, where you speak of providing inducements to vote or penalties for not voting. Have you any ideas about how the committee should develop that? Of course, the greater the number of people voting in an election, probably the less chance of corruption of the elective process exists.

Mr. BOYLE. That is right.

Senator MONRONEY. And the better representation the total vote gives is what we want in a democratic system. I wondered if you had any way in mind at the present time where by law the Congress could encourage a larger vote.

Mr. BOYLE. Well, Senator, I think that the most potent practical way would be to have a national holiday on election day. At the moment that is something that I think should be done because on election day we have had reports from the practical operation of getting people to vote that in some localities it is difficult for them to get off from these large plants out a certain distance, to vote on election day.

By having a national holiday you would make it possible for them to get down to vote.

Now, on the matter of how you might make it either compulsory or attractive for voters to vote on election day, that is something that would need a great deal of study. Many, many different plans have been suggested, and I do not feel now that I could make any kind of recommendation.

There are some countries, you know, where they have a privilege in their taxes if they vote and some have it that if they do not vote there is some slight penalty, but I am not prepared to recommend. But it is something that would go a long way toward getting a clearcut and clean election, getting the people to the polls, and I think if any body of people that studies this, including the Congress, finds some way of getting people to the polls, we will have good, clean elections, if they all vote; because you can control a few people but you cannot control all the people.

Senator MONRONEY. One phase in your statement I particularly like and I think it certainly deserves careful study by this committee and by the Congress is the question of Congress' making appropriations for the conduct of presidential and vice presidential campaigns. That would, I assume, prohibit any private contributions for the conduct of a presidential or vice presidential campaign.

Mr. BOYLE. Well, of course, that is something that has to be developed and studied. I would presume that is so, Senator. But of course in that there comes the actual mechanical and financial operations of a national committee as such. I am not prepared to answer you on that without further study.

I would like the chairman now to give me permission that I might submit to you and for the committee any suggestions we might follow through on or study which we might make of this.

Senator GILLETTE. I am sure there is no objection to that. In fact, we would appreciate it very much.

Mr. BOYLE. Thank you very much.

Senator MONRONEY. The only feature on that is that if you had just the two-party system working it would be one that the country would support; but if the Congress were called on to make contributions to a third party, such as the Wallace Progressive Party last electionit would be a difficult question what to do about your third party or splinter parties.

Mr. BOYLE. That would come into it. Another thing from a practical political standpoint is that if Government funds were provided then there would be a determination of how they were expended, and it might get to the point where the Government would be in some way controlling one or both national political committees. I mean, there are many practical difficulties; but, as I said awhile ago, this was first suggested by Theodore Roosevelt in 1907.

It would seem that both political parties have been left by the enactment of the Hatch Act and the pending legislation in a sort of quandary on financing, on both sides. I think our opponents will well agree on that.

The Hatch Act of course is a necessity, but yet there are some limitations on the national committees in the manner of their securing funds. So far we find in our committee-and we find that our honorable opponents followed the manner we followed to get the funds-we get our funds in our $100 dinners, our Jefferson and Jackson dinners. We receive most of our funds in that manner, and I think the Republican Party followed that last year and did very well. But the financing of the party is a very important point.

Senator MONRONEY. I particularly like your point 6 on page 4 of your statement, where you say the candidate himself should be responsible for the activities in his behalf and that he should not disclaim that responsibility for financial transactions or for the type of campaign waged.

Mr. BOYLE. Well, there could be a possible manner-to go back to these hidden committees, that might be tied right in together, there might be some corrective legislation that could handle that right there, that would place the responsibility.

But still it goes back to the investigations and reports that have been made, of which I made some, though not expert, examination— but from the casual examination I have made it seems to be the one point that stuck out, that these committees without authority and without substance are still in the political field, and the man certainly should be responsible for the type of campaign that is waged for him, but because of these hidden committees, for him to know what is going on

Senator MONRONEY. In some cases, I mean, you could have groups of economic concentration of power which would be working outside the candidate's headquarters and perhaps outside the control of the candidate completely and at the same time the candidate might have labor forces writing their own ticket and financing themselves; and so you have some difficulty there in centralizing authority and responsibility.

Mr. BOYLE. And also in some instances you could have a Communist or other type of committee set up supposedly to work for a particular candidate-and this would bar that.

Senator MONRONEY. And I suppose you, of course, are for any law that would require, before any money is spent on behalf of the candidate, getting the approval of the candidate's headquarters so there would be some responsibility there and so that outside people would not, without the permission or knowledge of the candidate, have him appear to be running for some things that the candidate might even be against.

Mr. BOYLE. That is right; I am strongly in favor of that.
Senator MONRONEY. I believe that is all.

Senator GILLETTE. Senator Hendrickson.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Mr. Boyle, I was particularly interested in the comment on the last page of your prepared statement. You said that the platforms were the basic documents of the campaign.

Mr. BOYLE. That is right.

Senator HENDRICKSON. I agree they should be. But do you really think that they are?

Mr. BOYLE. Well, I certainly do, Senator Hendrickson. I believe when a party goes into convention and the platform is written and presented to the convention, that the party members that are elected on that platform are certainly bound to follow the platform of the party as well as their conscience allows.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Well, now, let us take the two major party platforms at our last election, Presidential election.

Mr. BOYLE. Yes.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Both parties came out very definitely and firmly and specifically; they said, "We are for home rule in Washington." And what are they doing about that issue now?

Mr. BOYLE. Well, now, I will have to pass that one to my legislative counsel; you are here in force.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Let us then just take a look at the record and see what has been done. And yet it is a very specific provision of the platform whether you agree with it or whether you do not; and it is just another example of the fact that these platforms in the past have been honored more by the breach than by the performance. Mr. BOYLE. Yes.

Senator HENDRICKSON. And that is the reason I question the statement that platforms have been basic documents in our campaigns. I certainly agree with you that they should be; and I think we should stop writing things into our platforms that are vote-catchers and are things that we really do not mean.

Mr. BOYLE. I agree there. I am not the expert there, but I would say I do believe anything in the platform should be the objective of the party and part of its legislation.