I understand another body has a committee which is looking into election matters, which has contacted all of the county political organizations some 3,700 county committees which file reports covering their receipts and expenditures with State officials. No county committee can tell just exactly how much it spent on a presidential campaign, or how much it spent on a campaign to elect a governor or a Senator, because actually the committee supports the entire ticket, the whole Republican ticket or the whole Democratic ticket, and it would be hard to differentiate between the State and the national campaign.

For instance, the national committees of both parties were supporting not only their presidential and vice presidential candidates, but were also supporting the party senatorial and House candidates in the various States.

The CHAIRMAN. Another fact is that in each one of the States, each one of the committees actually participates in the national election as well as in the local election, and it would only be a guess as to the amount of money expended by the committees in all groups in the last national election, for instance.

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you be willing to hazard a guess as to the total amount of money expended by all committees?

Mr. BROWN. It would have to be a wild guess. I would like to say in the first place, that it cannot be determined purely on the basis of what is reported by the various committees, or by adding up the amounts that are contributed, or the amounts of expenditures.

For instance, as I said in the beginning, I contributed $100 to each of the eight committees in my congressional district to help them in their work.

Mr. KEATING. That was very easy?

Mr. BROWN. That was very easy, but it counts up. Now, those contributions I made were reported to the secretary of state as my expenditures. In one of the larger counties, I contributed another $100, which made a total of $900 in all.

The county committees also showed that they received my contributions and that they had expended that same money. In other words, that would result in showing some $1,800 of expenditures, instead of $900.

Often, State committees will send money to the smaller county committees to help get out the votes. That money has been contributed by someone. For instance, I made a contribution to the State finance committee to help in the State and the national campaign. It reported that I made that contribution. And that they in turn may send a part of that money to the State committee or send it back to the local committees. Again, the State committee may send a part of that money back to some county that does not have friends to get out the vote.

Therefore, the county committee will also report receipts from the State committee, all of which results in duplications.

Mr. KEATING. Am I correct that the county and State committees do not now make a Federal report?

Mr. BROWN. They do not make a Federal report.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have your opinion on what the total expenditures have been.

Mr. BROWN. As I indicated a while ago, it would be purely a very wild guess, but I would hate to have to pay all the expenditures out of my own pocket over $80 million which were made in the last campaign. And I may add also that expenditures do not always control in political results. I recall, for instance, in 1946 when I ran the successful National Republican campaign, we perhaps had less money than for many years. There had been many campaigns when the amount expended was larger, and yet the result was different.

I think perhaps one of the most expensive campaigns put on by the Republican Party in recent years was the campaign of 1936. Of course that was before the advent of television and as extensive use of the radio in campaigns. Today the costs are much higher than they were in the old days. In 1936, I think it cost something like $15,000 for 15 minutes on a national network hook-up. I understand it now costs. from $50,000 to $60,000 to get a national telecast hook-up over one network only.

The CHAIRMAN. In the case of some of the committees no reports are required, and in addition to that we have the cost for nomination. You have had a lot of experience in nominating conventions. As a matter of fact, I believe you were the campaign manager for Senator Taft, were you not?

Mr. BROWN. You refer to the preconvention period.

The CHAIRMAN. In both preconvention campaigns for both parties over a period of years, there have been a number of candidates. This last time there were some four or five Republican candidates.

Mr. BROWN. You are talking about preconvention days?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. And a half-dozen Democratic candidates. Is there any requirement at all in the law relative to preconvention activities?

Mr. BROWN. Not that I know of.

The CHAIRMAN. None that I know of.

Mr. BROWN. There is none in connection with the primaries as far as the Federal Government is concerned.

The CHAIRMAN. So that the potential nominee of one of the major political parties, which may have half a dozen or more candidates for nomination prior to the convention, is confronted with no limit at all in the expenditures that may be made.

Mr. BROWN. No. And it is rather difficult, may I add, for an individual to become a candidate for President unless he has very wide support and recognition as a result of public service of some kind.

The CHAIRMAN. And in addition to the other activities that might be conducted in the campaign itself, prior to the convention candidates for nomination may mail out literature and engage in radio and telecast programs.

Mr. BROWN. And you have overlooked the convention demonstrators who wait out in the alley to rush in at the proper time, as has happened in many conventions, fill up the galleries, and say they want somebody for President.

That is a part of the show.

I think, Mr. Chairman, speaking seriously, that this whole convention picture needs careful study by the Congress. I am sure that something can be done and should be done about it. I am entirely certain it is the will of the people to have some control over nominations, either in primaries or at conventions.

The CHAIRMAN. You think that some of the demonstrations are not. entirely spontaneous?

Mr. BROWN. I think I have seen a few where perhaps the spontaneous reaction was previously arranged.

The CHAIRMAN. I have heard about the same guess on expenditures that you indicated. That does not include any of the costs of the primary or preconvention activities of the potential candidates for national nomination; does it?

Mr. BROWN. That is right. There are no reports made of those expenditures that I know of. In some States, such as Ohio, for instance, there has to be a report of the expenditures made within the State in connection with the presidential primary and for the selection or election of delegates. There are other States where they hold conventions, which require a report of expenditures made in connection with the activity or candidacy of delegates before the convention, or even by the national candidates. But I know of no requirement for a national report.

And may I add this additional thought: There has been a great deal of talk concerning the holding of a national primary. I am not sure but that just as much money would be spent in a national primary for President as there is in a convention, or in preconvention activities. I am not at all sure a national primary would correct all the problems.

The CHAIRMAN. And it might be more.

Mr. BROWN. It might make it more so.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think it possible for the Congress to legislate in this field now? Is there any authority in the Congress, without a constitutional amendment of some kind, to regulate all these activities, including the amount of expenditures, running into astronomical sums of money?

Mr. BROWN. A recent Supreme Court decision sometime ago indicated the Court might hold constitutional some method or ways and means which can be used to control spending in connection with nominations, as well as the election of Federal officials.

At the present time, of course, there is no Federal law that provides. for a national convention. The national-convention system simply has grown up, and each party is pretty much a law unto itself and fixes its own rules to guide the party between conventions. And, as I understand and I think I am right-the only real authority that either party has, and the only responsibility that either party has, stems almost entirely from the convention itself. Each party selects its national committee, which is guided by certain rules and regulations adopted by the convention, and governing the party between conventions.

In other words, the rules and regulations adopted by the 1952 conventions this year will regulate and control the parties and party affairs until the 1956 conventions are held.

However, the States have regulations, within their statutes, as to how to create a party within the State; or how many voters will constitute a party within the State.

But, to my own knowledge, there is no Federal law on how to constitute a political party. As a result, the national political party is a law unto itself as far as its convention and the selection of its candi

dates is concerned. There has been a great deal of discussion concerning methods used in preconvention campaigns and the rules governing conventions, but all control a matter within the party.

Mr. KEATING. The total expenditure made in a political campaign would be the aggregate expenditures made by the various committees and the State organizations throughout the United States.

I would seriously question-and I would be glad to have your views on it simply because there was some Federal official as a candidate for Congress or otherwise on the ticket, whether that in and of itself would prove the Congress had power to require all the committees and the State committees to make a report to the Federal Government. Mr. BROWN. I certainly would agree they cannot, unless it could be based on the fact there are candidates for Federal office. And, as I say, the Supreme Court has indicated an act dealing with methods and ways and means to be used in connection with nominations, as well as election of Federal officials, might be constitutional.

Mr. KEATING. They always tell me that it is impossible to say how much money is expended for me, how much is expended in behalf of the sheriff, the coroner, and so on.

Mr. BROWN. In my own district, I know the committee did have my name on the list along with other Republican candidates, even though I had no opposition and was rather sure of being elected. There would certainly have been an investigation if I had not been.

Mr. KEATING. In my report I said there were many committees reporting the expenditures, and in addition they had the entire Republican ticket. I advised them that it was impossible to make a distinction telling how much was spent for each candidate. For that reason, for you and I and other Members of Congress, it makes it almost impossible to report how much has been expended for our benefit. Mr. BROWN. Of course, I do not know how much was spent. Mr. KEATING. I do not, either.

Mr. BROWN. As to money that may have been spent without my knowledge, I would not have to report. But you do have the problem as to finding out how your Committee can approach this matter within the States. In talking about amounts expended, Mr. McCulloch, my recollection is that the amount expended by the Republican State Committee in Ohio was over a million, a million four, or a million five hundred thousand dollars. At least, something over a million dollars was expended in the Ohio campaign. Yet, when you consider there are somewhere over 4 million eligible voters, it does not run into too much money.

Mr. McCULLOCH. And, of course, there is a great deal of duplication. Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Mr. McCULLOCH. The State committees make a report. They report every contribution that was made of every candidate.

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Mr. McCULLOCH. And the congressional candidate himself makes a report of the amount of money contributed to the committee. Mr. BROWN. That is correct. There are many duplications, many times, which means such a report does not reflect what actually happens. And these expenditures of a million or a million and a half dollars were entirely honest. It is my conviction that not a single penny was spent wrongly or illegally in any way in the State of Ohio by the State committees of either party. I am sure of that.

For instance, take a State-wide broadcast, or a State-wide telecast. For the single television station in Ohio, the cost will run as high as $650 to $750 for a 15-minute spot.

For instance, if I am going to cover the district, I will have to use at least three television stations. That would be around $2,000, which would represent my entire allowance just to make one television appearance of 15 minutes over three stations in order to cover my district.

The CHAIRMAN. That raises an interesting problem. Suppose you made four television appearances, and each one of them cost $2,000and this is a hypothetical question-but somehow you are bound to have knowledge of the sum of money expended.

Mr. BROWN. You are invited sometimes as a guest to answer questions, and do things like that. Then it becomes a question of the interpretation of the law. I presume the candidate would not care particularly whether it was the First Baptist Church or the Second Baptist Church that put on a picnic where he might have a chance to visit with the voters.

Mr. MCCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I have two questions that I would like to ask Congressman Brown, if I may.

The CHARMAN. Yes, Mr. McCulloch.

Mr. McCULLOCH. The first is, Have you come to a conclusion on the question of whether or not the Federal Government should require every political campaign committee to make a report of contributions and expenditures, in connection with the election or the defeat of a candidate?

Mr. BROWN. I think if such committee reports are required—that is, for the House and the Senate and the President-regardless of where they should be filed-and I am not sure that the Clerk of the House or the Chief Clerk of the Senate are the proper officials, because they are certainly not elected officials-that it might be helpful.

Of course, it is going to be difficult to prepare a law like that. For instance, you have all seen these publications put out by various labor and other organizations on a national basis which purport to give the voting records of Congressmen, but all they do primarily and honestly is for the purpose of influencing the votes, but nobody is being kidded about that. They try to say that it is educational. The chairman mentioned in his opening statement that a lot of these educational activities are purely political. Of course, we know that they are, and that is why we ought to stop kidding the American voters about them.

Let me add this, and I want to emphasize this, if I may: The present restrictions in the laws of most Ŝtates, and under the Federal laws, on the expenditures of candidates for Congress, or the Senate, are unfair to them when the laws of the same States and of the Federal Government permit these organizations to go out and hammer, smear, and attack, or to support other candidates for the same office. In other words why was I limited in my district to $2,000 in personal expenditures, when the United Auto Workers, to name names, spent thousands of dollars circularizing my district with these so-called pamphlets saying what a terrible voting record I had? Of course, I had a very good answer for their charges.

Some of these radical organizations, as I remember, had a list of 11 or 12 or 14 votes by which they judged my ability as a Congressman. So, I went on the radio, and spoke where I could, to answer