But we prepared ourselves to report this morning only on the political fund.

Mr. KEATING. You probably have not yet filed your report on the 1952 campaign expenditures.

Mr. McDEVITT. Yes. We are past the date. We have already filed it.

Mr. KEATING. Do you remember the amount given in that report? Mr. McDEVITT. I have it here if you desire to have it.

Mr. KEATING. What was it?

Mr. McDEVITT. The total expenditures from January through November of this year would represent in the political fund $242,661.13. Mr. KEATING. Are you able to give us an idea of whether that would be something less than one-half of the total amount spent during the same period of time by Labor's League for Political Education? Mr. McDEVITT. No; I would not be prepared to say that.

Mr. KEATING. You do not have those figures at hand as to what the total expenditures were?

Mr. McDEVITT. No; I do not-not in the educational field-because that would require a consultation with our headquarters, because there are other activities over there that come under the category of educational functions.

Mr. KEATING. In compiling and reporting the so-called voting records of Members of Congress, do you consider that as part of the educational or political activities of the league?

Mr. McDEVITT. That is very definitely a part of the educational activities or functions of our league, because in those pamphlets we do not advocate the election or defeat of anyone. We simply report the complete vote on the bills in which we find we have an interest. Mr. KEATING. And do you correct errors in those reports when they are brought to your attention-factual errors in reporting the way in which a Member of Congress had voted on a particular measure? Mr. McDEVITT. Yes, sir.

Mr. KEATING. Is that corrected by you if it is brought to your attention?

Mr. McDEVITT. That is right. If we find we are incorrect in the statement attributed, we, of course, proceed to make correction.

Mr. KEATING. And do you disseminate your corrections in the same manner in which you disseminate the voting record?

Mr. McDEVITT. That is true. There is a supplemental sheet sent out.

Mr. KEATING. I assume, however, when that voting record gets in the hands of those to whom it is disseminated, it is then used to advocate the election or defeat of specific candidates.

Mr. McDEVITT. Would you mind repeating that question? I do not know that I followed you.

Mr. KEATING. Are you aware of the fact that when those so-called voting records are transmitted to those on your mailing list they are then primarily used in articles advocating the election or defeat of specific candidates?

Mr. McDEVITT. Undoubtedly there are references made to that voting record. There is no question about that.

Mr. KEATING. And references which do advocate the election or defeat of specific candidates?

Mr. McDEVITT. That would be up to the local areas in which the records are sent.

Mr. KEATING. The records are accompanied by suggested appraisals of specific candidates based upon those voting records; are they not? Mr. McDEVITT. When we engage in a political campaign for or opposed to a particular candidate, the voting record or complete record of that candidate for public office will have with it, attached to it, an appraisal by our office indicating what the action and thinking of that particular candidate was with respect to legislation in which we had an interest, but all under the political expenditures and all under the political organization.

Mr. KEATING. You mean when that does accompany your document on the voting record, insofar as the preparation of the document has relation to that item, it is charged to your political fund; is that right?

Mr. McDEVITT. Let me follow that once more.

Mr. KEATING. I understood you to indicate that when the voting records are disseminated that comes under your educational activity. Mr. McDEVITT. That is correct.

Mr. KEATING. And is not reported as a political activity?

Mr. McDEVITT. No; not as far as the finances are concerned. Mr. KEATING. The expense of compiling is not included in your report of political expenditures?

Mr. McDEVITT. That is correct.

Mr. KEATING. Now, there comes a time when the so-called interpretation of that voting record is disseminated by your organization to the same recipients of your mailing matter. Am I correct about that?

Mr. McDEVITT. That is correct, except as to this point: When we send out an evaluation, that is separate and apart from the voting record that we sent earlier in the year. Those records are sent out much earlier than our determination to favor or oppose a particular candidate.

Mr. KEATING. The compilation of the evaluation you do consider a political expenditure, and that is charged to your political fund; is that right?

Mr. McDEVITT. The evaluation and comment we have to make on it would be out of the political fund.

Mr. KEATING. And would be reported and is included, for instance, in the figures which you have given us?

Mr. McDEVITT. That is correct. But, Congressman, I want to say this to you; we view that kind of an approach in this fashion: If it is legal for newspapers, the public press, and magazines, to print the records of our Congressmen and our Senators in their regular editions, and if it is legal for association papers to comment on voting records, we feel it is equally as legal for us.

Now, I am a layman; I do not profess to be one qualified in the law. That is just my own thinking about it.

Mr. KEATING. And do you consider that in the nature of editorial comment, then?

Mr. McDEVITT. No; we do not.

Mr. KEATING. In sending out the compilation of the voting records, do you engage in the practice of some organizations-and I am simply inquiring whether you do or not-of designating those votes as right or wrong?

Mr. McDEVITT. Yes. You will find, if you have seen them, as I am sure you have, the records produced and published by our league will indicate whether or not the voting record of the Senator or Congressman was right in accordance with our desires, and what we think is the position we would like to have the Representative take on that particular bill.

Mr. KEATING. Even though that characterization is included in the literature which you disseminate, you still consider it as educational rather than political?

Mr. McDEVITT. I do; yes. We do not advocate the election or defeat of anyone in those pamphlets. There is no mention made of candidates as such. We are merely reporting how the Congressman or Senator voted on that particular bill or set of bills.

Mr. KEATING. Is it your expectation and your hope that the member of Congress who voted wrong 100 percent of the time, according to your standards, [which, I might interpolate in asking you these questions I am not suggesting are wrong] would have the support or the opposition of Labor's League-have the opposition of your people? Mr. McDEVITT. If he was 100 percent wrong, I would hope he would have the opposition of our people.

Mr. KEATING. And you would expect that implication would be carried to those to whom your report was sent; would you not?

Mr. McDEVITT. I would say "Yes." But there is certainly no indication if it is. We do not have the facilities for reaching all of our people with individual pamphlets.

Mr. KEATING. When you come to the decision of sending out what you designate as the political end of your activities to advocate the election or defeat of a specific candidate for Congress, if he has been right 50 percent of the time and wrong 50 percent of the time by your standards, how do you determine whether you should advocate either his defeat or election?

Mr. McDEVITT. I think you will recall I previously stated that determination is left to the local group in the area in which the candidate resides. They make the final determination irrespective of what his or her record may be in the House or in the Senate. They have that determination, not the league.

Mr. KEATING. The league gives them advice; does it not?

Mr. McDEVITT. We counsel and advise, and we evaluate, but the local league may accept or reject it.

Mr. KEATING. Are you aware that in many instances the local league interprets that they are bound by the decision reached by the parent body?

Mr. McDEVITT. I would not say that.

Mr. KEATING. That has not come to your attention?

Mr. McDEVITT. No. We are really an autonomous organization.

Mr. KEATING. I think you and I had better have a little talk with each other.

Mr. McDEVITT. I would be very happy to do that.

Mr. McCULLOCH. I would like to ask, Mr. McDevitt, whether or not the expenditures by your organization for educational purposes are constant throughout the year.

Mr. McDEVITT. Yes; they are.

Mr. McCULLOCH. They are constant from month to month?
Mr. McDEVITT. That is correct.

Mr. McCULLOCH. And from year to year, generally speaking?
Mr. McDEVITT. That is true.

Mr. MCCULLOCH. Could you furnish this committee with a breakdown of the expenditures of your organization for educational purposes, month by month, over the last few years, including November 1952?

Mr. McDEVITT. I suppose we could.

Mr. MCCULLOCH. If you can furnish that, I would like to have that submitted to the committee.

Mr. McDEVITT. Is that required? Not that we have anything to withhold from the committee-not at all-but I am wondering and am a little perplexed. I came over under the impression we were going to talk about the political fund and questions indicated in your memorandum. If we take the whole broad field, I will have to discuss it with other representatives.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Speaking as an individual, and not speaking for the committee, it is my understanding that we can attempt to explore the whole field of expenditures in the campaign for 1952, and any expenditure of money which would primarily or materially influence the decision of the voters, in my opinion, would be a proper field of inquiry. I am therefore interested in knowing what your organization has spent for educational purposes over a period of a long enough time so that we can come to a conclusion as to what the mental processes are in determining this line of demarcation, which obviously is a very close one, on which you have spoken in response to questions by Congressman Keating. Therefore, I should like to have you submit to the committee a month-by-month breakdown for a 2-year period, if that would not be unreasonable, of your expenditures for political education, and, along with it, a month-by-month breakdown of your expenditures for purely political activities intended to influence the outcome of the elections.

Mr. McDEVITT. I shall be happy to take that up with our counsel and advise you of our determination there.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I should like to have that information furnished the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead, Mr. McDevitt.

Mr. McDEVITT. That answers No. 4 for the time being.

No. 5 deals with the subject of individuals, concerning the limiting of expenditures on the part of individuals, that is, contributors, to the sum of $5,000. I think we would like to suggest that there is need for a real change there. And while we are not quarreling with the sum of $5,000 with respect to an individual contribution, in order to avoid some of the abuses that are current in that particular field, we would like to suggest that such contributions be limited to $5,000, and such $5,000 cover the field of primary and general elections and all candidates. In other words, so that an individual under no circumstances could spend more than $5,000 in connection with any one campaign, including the primary and general election.

Mr. MCCULLOCH. Did I understand that statement to be you believe that no candidate for Federal office should be permitted to spend in excess of $5,000?

Mr. McDEVITT. I did not say that, Mr. Congressman, I said contributions on the part of individuals, and also we would like to add to that that such contributions be limited to $5,000.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you suggest that the limitation be $5,000 for all purposes?

Mr. McDEVITT. Yes, that is correct, and that such contributions be acceptable only from persons 18 years or more of age. We have situations now where infants 2 years old, and infants 3 years old are contributing $5,000 in a given family. We do not think that is just correct. Therefore we would like to see the laws make that $5,000 and limit it to that exactly, and that for the entire campaign, for a particular candidate or party.

There is another question, No. 5, Mr. Chairman, where we have that $50 limitation for filing on expenditures or contributions. We think that amount might reasonably be increased to $200 because of the tremendous increase in the cost of campaign material.

Next with respect to No. 6, on the problem of scandalous and libelous literature, we have not any suggestion to make on that, Mr. Chairman, excepting to say that we feel that the present laws on that are adequate if they are enforced. Therefore we do not desire to add anything further to that section.

With respect to No. 7, corporations and labor unions, expenditures for political purposes, it is a very tender subject with us. We feel very deeply about the inclusion of trade-union organizations, as such, with corporations, not that we do not desire to have company, but we do not think that there is any real comparison because of the fact that we are in an entirely different field from that in which the corporations

are.

The only income accruing to unions is that which is derived from dues and voluntary contributions such as we might ask for during the course of a campaign. Now, it is entirely different on the other side. Corporations which are operating for profit are in a much different position than we are. We think that the act ought to be changed so as to have us included with associations, civic groups, and trade associations; and not with corporations which are in a different field. There is no relationship between them.

Mr. McCULLOCH. I wonder if some of the basic considerations are not the same. If I am a stockholder in a corporation I might have a logical reason for complaining bitterly against the corporation making a contribution to influence an election one way or another. I might have a personal feeling that Mr. X should be elected, while the corporation by proper action might think Mr. Y should be elected. Now, I think the same reasoning would apply if I were a member of a labor union. I might as a union member feel that Mr. X should be elected, and some other members of the union might feel that Mr. Y should be elected, and the controlling body of the union might feel that Mr. Y should be elected, but I do not think that the money of which I am a part equitable owner of the corporation should be used for that purpose any more than I think that the funds of my labor union should be used for that purpose, funds in which I have at least an equitable ownership. I think, at least, to that extent, that conditions are exactly alike.

Mr. McDEVITT. Mr. Congressman, being mindful that you are somewhat removed from the knowledge of operations on the part of unions as compared to those of corporations, which are entirely different, let me say that you could not walk into a union and make a contribution to a political candidate even before this act was passed.