Page images
PDF
EPUB

May I say now, having listened to the statement of the Federal Communications Commission, that we had a possibility of a serious problem in our county. We are a metropolitan community, the ninth largest county in the United States. As a matter of fact, we fondly refer to it as the State of Allegheny at times, because of the designation President Lincoln gave to it in the election of 1864.

In our county we have a single television station. When they talk about the obligation, as they said on page 3, to sell equal facilities to the candidates, there could have been the problem and there might have been the problem that one party could have bought up the operation of the station to the exclusion of the other in a large metropolitan community.

For reasons that have been the subject of controversy, that have never been fully explained, there has not been a grant for a second, third, or fourth license for a television station in the Pittsburgh area, despite its size, although they have been before the Commission 2 or 3 years.

I think we could have had a bad political result if one of the parties or the other had exercised the possible use of the money to definitely freeze the other out, and it could have been done in view of the restricted facilities.

I think the Commission ought to act rather promptly in the matter, before another election rolls around, where the same thing could happen again.

The CHAIRMAN. Sheriff, I would think that there would be additional permits authorized in that area. Mr. WHITTEN. I did not hear you, sir.

I The CHAIRMAN. I say, I think that there have been additional permits authorized in that area, in all probability. Whether any were authorized or not I really do not know.

Mr. WHITTEN. There have been a substantial number of applications.

The CHAIRMAN. They had a freeze on for all of them for a year or 2 years, I believe.

Mr. KEATING. But that freeze has been off for some time.

Mr. WHITTEN. Here is the city of New York, with eight television channels, and the city of Cleveland, I think, has six. Cleveland is 130 miles from Pittsburgh. I believe that Youngstown, which is 60 miles away, has two. We have one.

We have 1,750,000 people in our county, and within a 25-mile radius, there are nearly 3,000,000 people. What could have happened could have been bad, had one party undertaken to freeze the facilities. We have six radio stations and one television station. I think the Commission can validate the statement they have made here, and they should move more promptly on the station in Pittsburgh.

We have another one at Johnstown, but to use it you would have to go to Johnstown, and it is strictly inconvenient and would not work out.

Mr. KEATING. Your situation is parallel to that of my community in Rochester, N. Y., which, of course, is not nearly so large as your metropolitan area. However, we are close to a half million in population. They have had applications pending for years. A number

a

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

of applications for additional television stations are in.

Mr. WHITTEN. Yes.

Mr. KEATING. We are served by only one station, whereas nearby a considerably smaller community of Syracuse has two stations.

Mr. WHITTEN. When we started the campaign the first problem, of course, was to recognize the value of television. Promptly I consulted personally and through the agencies with WDTV, and they have a very capable and a very public-spirited management.

I contracted for certain periods of time; what we thought was within our financial ability to pay. But had I had unlimited resources-under the limitation now imposed in Congress I suppose Allegheny could have spent $3 million-and had I had an owner of the station receptive to our viewpoint, I might have frozen out the opposition completely, and even when Mr. Stevenson spoke in Pittsburgh, within 4 days of the close of the campaign, he could not have been on television.

I say that situation is bad, and it could be worse. Therefore, I think that should be given recognition, considering the needs of a metropolitan area of our size.

I have as a lawyer been engaged in political matters from a legal standjoint for about 25 years. I am rather familiar with the election laws of Pennsylvania and to a much more moderate extent the election laws of the United States, but it is obvious to me that the limitation of $3 million upon the national committee is now an absurdity. It hardly pays for the transportation of the candidates in the trains or on the planes that they use to go about the country, much less to cover this television question.

I am not for an unrestrained allowance, but there is some place along the line where you have to be realistic, and it seems to me that the question of the limitation of expenditures ought to be set up more nearly on a congressional basis for several reasons.

The question of allocation of population and the location of State lines and so forth is more fairly effected by recognizing the congressional district than any other organization. You could not use the senatorial set-up, because then you go back to the States, and you have an unbalance immediately. Only in a few instances today do we have States with but one Congressman, such as Nevada. Therefore, the congressional district reflects a reasonable division of the people.

If you are going to have a limitation, why not arrive at some respectable figure on the basis of the congressional district, with the management of the expenditure of the funds always in the hands of the county committee which represents the district? You know and I know that political parties are basically county organizations. If you are going to put a limitation on, recognize it from that standpoint.

Mr. KEATING. Do you mean to do away with the national committee ?

Mr. WHITTEN. Oh, no. In the end the national committee is only a number over the field. The actual work and the real expenditures are done down in the district.

Mr. KEATING. Your idea would be to limit the amount which could be spent in any congressional district ?

Mr. WHITTEN. Using the congressional district basis for handling it.

Mr. KEATING. That limitation would apply to all committees or organizations advocating the candidacy of any particular candidate?

Mr. WHITTEN. That is right.

Of course, you have a problem. In Pennsylvania we fortunately elect only State and National candidates in the even-numbered years, but the next-door State to ours, Ohio, operates in quite a different manner. I saw the ballot from the city of Cleveland, and they began with the President of the United States, and literally ran down to the judges. Every candidate possible is on the ballot.

So this thing of limiting them on their expenditures presents a problem where you have a duplication on the ballot set-up. In our State it would be relatively simple, because it is literally for the Statewide or congressional contests exclusively in the even-numbered years. This suggestion of mine may be impractical in Ohio, because you deal with other candidates.

Certainly, from our viewpoint, allocating the money on a congressional basis or limiting the money on a congressional basis is satisfactory. Then let the limitation apply in terms of the national committee.

Mr. KEATING. Then would you have a different limit in the various congressional districts?

Mr. WHITTEN. No. Make them the same. Make them the same.

You see, that is the theory basically of the election of the President now. Some of the States recognize it. We put the President's name on the ballot. Actually the President himself is not a candidate. The elector is running for an office to elect somebody. You are supplying funds to elect John Jones, an elector in the district. So the whole election goes back to the congressional set-up.

Actually that is the yardstick which would be used. I sort of picked this out of the sky in the last couple of days, but it seems to me to be the basic limitation which would be used.

Mr. KEATING. How much do you think should be the limit for each congressional district ?

Mr. WHITTEN. If I used the story in the newspapers, somebody aid in the newspapers that they had spent $100 million. I think that is a little optimistic. Suppose they had spent $50 million. Then

a cut it in half again, and you have $25 million. I am sure there was $25 million spent.

Take the 435 election districts, and divide them into the $25 million, and that will give you a realistic figure of what was spent. Then relate it to the congressional districts and put a ceiling on and hold it.

Your trouble is that you have $3 million to a committee, and your national committee uses it, but that would not prevent 40 more committees from doing the same thing.

Mr. KEATING. Take your congressional districts. Every one of them probably spent locally $50,000.

Mr. WHITTEN. I think on the average you spent more than that.
The CHAIRMAN. How much did you spend !
Mr. WHITTEN. Total in the county?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. WHITTEN. About $330,000. Unfortunately, we have four congressional districts. Actually our population entitles us to five, but the reapportionment last time did not do us justice.

[ocr errors]

a

The CHAIRMAN. Sheriff, how much would you say the Democrats spent for the same offices ?

Mr. WHITTEN. According to the figures that they published, I believe yesterday-our account was filed yesterday and I think theirs was filed yesterday-they spent something around $150,000.

The CHAIRMAN. So that a total of about $500,000 was spent in Allegheny County?

Mr. WHITTEN. That is about right. $500,000 would be a fair approach.

Consistently over the years the Republican expenditures in Allegheny County have been substantially greater than those of the Democrats, but to show you that money has had little effect, although we nave for 20 years spent more than they, we lost the county in 1932 by about 37,000; we lost in 1936 by 190,000; we lost in 1940 by 110,000; we lost in 1944 by about 105,000 ; and we lost in 1948 by slightly under 80,000. This year we sort of bailed ourselves out and got down to the 11,000 level. Actually the amount of money spent in the past did not influence it. I do not think it influenced it November 4.

The CHAIRMAN. Sheriff, it seems to me that the difficulty about your congressional apportionment theory is that it does not take into account the electoral college system. For instance, a State like Pennsylvania has a total of 34 electoral votes; is that not right?

Mr. WHITTEN. Thirty. Thirty congressional seats and two Senators. Thirty-two votes.

The CHAIRMAN. You used to have 34. Did you not lose a couple?

Mr. WHITTEN. Yes. The last two censuses we have lost on apportionment. There were 33 of them and then 32, and now they are down to 30. We have lost two.

The CHAIRMAN. You have 32 now!
Mr. WHITTEN. Thirty now.
The CHAIRMAN. Twenty-eight Congressmen?
Mr. WHITTEN. Thirty congressional districts and two Senators.
The CHAIRMAN. You have 32 electoral votes?
Mr. WHITTEN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The State of New York, I believe, has 47.
Mr. KEATING. Forty-three plus two, or 45.

The CHAIRMAN. Forty-five. Obviously those two States, despite the fact that you have 43 Congressmen from New York and 30 Congressmen from Pennsylvania, are in a position where proportionately the electoral votes are much more important than in a State which may be completely one-sided and have only 6, 7, 8, or 9 electoral votes. Your system of allocating by congressional districts does not strike me as being practical.

Mr. WHITTEN. I will have to differ with you, Mr. Boggs, except for the State that has one Congressman, such as Nevada, or the State which has a great deficiency in population. I do not remember what Nevada is now, but it used to be less than 100,000 people, and they have one Congressman and two Senators. The number of electoral votes there is way out of balance, so far as Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania, or any place else is concerned.

The electoral college itself reflects the congressional districts. The only difference is the allowance for the two Senators for each State.

Making the best of a difficult situation, the congressional apportionment came closer to establishing a basis for limitation of the expenditures than any other system I could find. I do not say it is perfect. Of course it is not. But basically it gives something to start with which reflects the division of the population throughout the country, and will continue to do so as the census is changed from time to time, because of adjustment in the personnel of Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I did not mean to interrupt you. Go ahead, , sir.

Mr. WHITTEN. Well, I believe I probably have finished. I had a modest statement. If you desire to ask me any questions I shall be happy to try to answer.

The CHAIRMAN. We had a gentleman here yesterday who was a professor from the University of Michigan who I thought made a very sensible observation. He said that his studies had convinced him that the amount spent was not nearly so important as the source of the contributions and the use of the contributions.

Mr. WHITTEN. I believe I can say something on that subject.

The CHAIRMAN. In your experience would you care to comment on that?

Mr. WHITTEN. I think he is probably right. It seems to me that one of the problems that -we have, which has attempted to have been legislated upon but apparently not too effectively, is the question of contributions to political campaigns by other than individuals. By that I mean people who stand in representative capacities, whether corporations or labor unions or committees or anything else.

My own feeling has always been that either it ought to go all one way or all the other. In other words, the statutory restraint on corporations making gifts I think is sound, but I do not believe it is a fair comparison to permit a similar organization, such as a labor union, to effectively do it because of a different kind of organization, and restrain the opposition. Personally I think they ought to both be ruled out, and let it go back to where only the individuals as individuals can make contributions to political campaigns.

At that point I then say that outside of a reasonable limitation, which probably the $5,000 answers, I think the publicity of contributions will more hold the thing in bounds than any statutory provision any Congress or any legislature can ever enact, because the ridicule and the criticism and so forth that goes obviously with the support of one political party by a very closed organization is such that when the facts become known, even though they come after an election, they have an effect in the future and restrain the control of any political party by any particular combination.

One of the newspaper systems has a statement under a masthead: Give the people light and they will find their own way. So far as political contributions are concerned, I think that is practically perfect.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you not say also that the use of funds has changed in recent times? We have found that most of these funds had been used for radio, television, advertising, direct mail, literature.

As a matter of fact, I think the same professor we had here yesterday said there was a Bear contest in Philadelphia

Mr. WHITTEN. A Bear contest? United States Senator from Pennsylvania.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bear, I think he said, in Allegheny County had hired 10,000 poll watchers.

a

« PreviousContinue »