Page images


Mr. WHITTEN. Frankly, the amount of money used for poll watchers has receded in the years. At one time it was, of course, I suspect,

I maybe used for a purpose not exactly proper. But you will find if you look at the accounts of both parties in our county that the amount of money for poll watchers is practically identical, and is now reduced to a very modest figure.

I think our poll watchers are about $50,000. We have 1,124 election districts. “You know as well as I do that you do not get a worker on an election day for a $5 bill to call up people, bring them down to vote, or whatever is necessary, for a $5 bill, when they are industrially employed as they are pretty well in our county at the present time and can make $20 that day. Their interest in the principles of the party is extremely thin. Therefore, the old use of the $5 bill is practically eliminated.

And the gross amount for poll watchers has almost steadily receded, and I do not believe there is any complaint that the polls are undermanned. The truth of it is that on election day almost entirely it is transportation, telephone, solicitation, call it baby-watching, and so on, to take care of things for the elector during the moment he is voting, or whatever it may be. It is almost entirely confined to that today. The use of the money at least on the last election, in my judgment, was almost to an absolute minimum.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you say that the number of volunteer poll watchers has increased ? Mr. WHITTEN. I would not say there were no volunteer poll watch

In truth there were a tremendous number of volunteer poll watchers, because of the unusual interest that the women took in the campaign. Most of them went to the polls, may I say, divinely inspired, since we happened to be successful. They went there to work without any thought of compensation.

Mr. KEATING. Were there not more volunteer poll watchers unpaid in this election than in any previous one?

Mr. WHITTEN. It would be my judgment that that is true. But they did not act as poll watchers. They did not stand around the polls and hand out tickets for Stevenson or Eisenhower or the various candidates. They were on the telephones, were using their automobiles, or going to the houses to relieve the electors for the period they were attending the polling place. The number of people passing out literature was practically zero.

In fact, both parties made an effort to keep the watchers away from the polls, and to stand aside and let the people vote. That is substantially the answer. There were a tremendous number of volunteers who entered into it without compensation, and that was probably greater this time than any time in history, at least in our county.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Karsten?
Mr. KARSTEN. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Long?

Mr. Long. Do you file a financial statement with the Clerk of the House under the Federal Corrupt Practices Act?

Mr. WHITTEN. We do, sir. I believe it was filed either yesterday or today. I think, if my recollection is correct, we file three separate statements.

We filed one with the Senate committee. Just recently that came about. We send one to the House. We file one locally in Allegheny

County, and one with the Secretary of the Commonwealth at Harrisburg, who has charge of State-wide activities.

Mr. KEATING. Let me inquire about that. I did not have the impression that normally throughout the country county committees did file reports with the Clerk of the House. You do that because you feel that since there are congressional candidates as well as presidential candidates running, for whom they are working, that some of the funds you spent were for them?

Mr. WHITTEN. Just a minute. I could be wrong. The reason I could be wrong is because I know we prepared and filed it with the Senatorial Campaign Committee, for the statement they requested the other day. I am not positive.

We file with the Clerk of the House. I was not sure. The one going to the Senate confused me at the moment, and that is what I thought you meant.

Mr. KEATING. You have always done that?

Mr. WHITTEN. I became chairman May 19, 1952. I think the practice has been followed. If it was required by law I know it was done. Whether it was done or not I am not sure.

Mr. KEATING. I am sure most of them want to comply with the law. Mr. WHITTEN. Surely.

Mr. KEATING. But I did not have the impression that the county committees generally throughout the country did file their reports with the Clerk of the House and the clerk or the Secretary of the Senate.

Do you know from your investigation whether that is true or not? Mr. Long. The great majority of them do not, sir. The provision of the law is in section 241 of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, which defines political committees, and then subsequently in the act imposes certain duties, one of which is to file with the Clerk of the House.

It says a political committee is: any committee, association, or organization which accepts contributions or makes expenditures for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence the election of candidates or presidential and vice presidential electors (1) in two or more States, or (2) whether or not in more than one State if such committee, association, or organization (other than a duly organized State or local committee of a political party) is a branch or subsidiary of a National committee, association, or organization.

Mr. KEATING. I believe the last language is intended to exempt county committees of the regular established parties who operate only within a county or a State committee, which operates only within the State, and that they are no required to file reports with the Federal Government.

Mr. Long. That is my interpretation of the law, sir. Also, under the same provision, it is my interpretation that the $3 million limitation does not apply to such committees. They are not under any limitation at all so far as the Federal law is concerned.

The CHAIRMAN. Sheriff, you have been very helpful to us.
Mr. WHITTEN. It is a pleasure to have been here, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

, The committee will meet at 2:30 to hear Chairman Mitchell of the Democratic Party.

(Thereupon, at 11:57 a. m., Thursday, December 4, 1952, a recess was taken until 2:30 p. m. of the same day.)


The committee met at the expiration of the recess, Hon. Hale Boggs (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. We are very pleased to have with us this afternoon Chairman Mitchell, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Mr. Mitchell, we appreciate your presence here. I might say that Mr. Summerfield, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Smith, along with others, have appeared. Would you like to make a statement to the committee!


[ocr errors]



Mr. MITCHELL. No, sir; I came in response to your invitation and to answer any questions that I may be able to answer.

May I introduce Mr. Harold Leventhal, who is counsel of the committee and who was good enough to come here today. We are fortunate that he is able to contribute his time, because he may be able to help us on any questions of law that may arise.

The CHAIRMAN. I might say that we have been conducting these hearings for the primary purpose of obtaining suggestions for amendments to the present Federal election laws. We sent out a brief staff memorandum to the various witnesses; I am sure you have seen that?

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It is the opinion of the committee, each year that these studies have been conducted, that they have demonstrated the need for additional legislation in this field, but thus far Congress has not acted. The recently concluded national election has raised additional problems; for instance, the problem of the limitation of $3 million that may be spent by the respective committees. We have already learned that more than $3 million was spent on television alone in the recently conducted campaign. So that we feel that our laws ought to be amended, ought to be brought up to date, and that this business of evading them, perhaps through necessity, should be ended.

We should like very much to have the benefit of any suggestions you may have and, if it meets your approval, I will asko Mr. Keating if he has any questions.

Mr. KEATING. Perhaps Mr. Mitchell would like to comment on Mr. Boggs' statement first.

Mr. MITCHELL. I can say that my feeling in the matter is along the same general line that you have expressed. There are a few observations that it seems to me are valid. One of them is in connection with separate committees

As we all know, separate committees are required by the law. But you are not able to have a coordinated campaign and the lack of coordination, it is inefficient, and more money is spent by numerous committees, in my judgment, than would be spent if the direction of the campaign were by one. I cannot prove that, but that is an opinion.

The law does prohibit unified management of a campaign. In the case of the Stevenson-Sparkman campaign, the operati ous committees, the volunteers, entirely outside


funds, was such that we found ourselves colliding in attempting to get a radio or television program, or radio or television time.

Mr. KEATING. Do you think that was limited to the Democratic Party? Do you not think the same thing happened on the Republican side?

Mr. MITCHELL. I do not know, but I would say that we collided with other Democratic spots a good many times, including one time when I appeared on a program and found that the public announcement, in the course of a program, was a plug for the candidate for the Republican Party. That is the only collision that I recall right now.

Mr. KEATING. In that regard, do you think that all political campaigning on the national level should be centered in a single agency such as the national committees?

Mr. MITCHELL. No, I do not think that would be consistent with the liberty that there should be for individuals to join together and campaign for a person of their choice. But I think as to the control of expenditures, the large part of it should be directed on behalf of the candidates, from one place. That is obviously the Republican National Committee for the Republicans and the Democratic National Committee for the Democrats, or the national committee for any other party.

Mr. KEATING. Do you think those committees should have the responsibility for limiting the expenditures of all organizations furthering the candidacies of the respective candidates?

Mr. MITCHELL. I doubt that, sir.
Mr. KEATING. That would be a heavy burden?

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes. I think the burden of that in addition to the candidate addressing himself to the issues, would make it very difficult. This is a very big country. After all, there are 160 million people and there are great areas involved and there is the difficulty of compressing a campaign into a few weeks which might otherwise seem to be a long period of time. But there is no waste of time. I do not go along with the proposal that we should attempt to regulate participation in campaigns.

Mr. KEATING. No, I do not, either.

Mr. MITCHELL. But I think the direction of the main campaign should be done at one source.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will allow me to interrupt for just a minute, Mr. Keating, I think one of the reasons for the creation of these additional committees is the fact that there is this $3 million limitation on total expenditures of any one committee.

Do you think that that limitation, in the light of current costs of

Ꭰ television and radio time, the printing of literature, travel, and so forth, is a realistic limitation?

Mr. MITCHELL. I do not. I think it is too small.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you feel that if that limitation were raised to a more realistic figure, the expenditure of funds by other independent committees could be somewhat lessened?


The CHAIRMAN. In other words, today, both in the Republican and in the Democratic Party, we have found that they have had to rely upon these committees; Mr. Smith of the volunteers was here the other day and said that out of total funds of approximately $800,000, about $400,000 or $500,000 was spent for television and I assume, considering that it is necessary for the national committee to work with the volunteers on scheduling this television time, you still did not have full control over it, did you?

Mr. MITCHELL. That is right. The only control was the control of the candidate's time. You are making an illustration here of the lack of coordination and I think expenses and loss of time are coincident with that.

In our case, the national committee spelled out the record, showing that they spent something of the order of $400,000 for radio and television programs—that is, the Democratic National Committee. We did not have enough money. We could not have spent more within our limitation. It was obvious at the very beginning that if extensive radio and television coverage was to be had, it would have to be undertaken by someone else. And as soon as we recognized that, some of these substitute or entirely independent arrangements had to be made and we had programs sponsored by such as those you have named, Mr. Boggs, the volunteers' organization.

There were also some by the Stevenson-Sparkman Forum Committee; I am told somewhere of the order of $700,000 or $800,000. You said that the volunteers had something like $400,000. I did not know what they had spent, but there is $400,000. We spent $400,000 and the other organization $800,000. So there you have something like $1,500,000 or $1,600,000 by three different independent groups.

Mr. KEATING. A limitation on expenditures certainly is not the only reason; perhaps it is the chief reason for the formation of these individual groups or independent groups.

Mr. MITCHELL. That is true.

Mr. KEATING. I know that on the Republican side we had independent groups because of the fact that there were Independents and Democrats who preferred the candidacy of General Eisenhower and who were anxious to go out and work for him. It was not the financial reason which gave rise to the formation of these committees; it was just a loyalty to the candidate who was being presented to the American people.

Mr. MITCHELL. Well, they did not want to be part of the Republican Party; isn't that so?

Mr. KEATING. Some of them were Democrats.
Mr. MITCHELL. They wanted to disassociate themselves in some way.

Mr. KEATING. They wanted to be independent of any political party. They could not join with the Democrats and they did not want to join with the Republicans, so they formed an independent committee. Of course, incidentally, that meant that each one of them was able to spend up to $3 million. But on the Republican side, so far as I know, there were no such committees formed just for the purpose of meeting that problem.

Mr. MITCHELL. It was done in many cases, I suggest, on a slightly different basis. The Republican State organization in my State of Illinois is a very successful money-raising organization or operation. There is, I am told, a similar one in New York; the New York Times talks about it. The same purpose was accomplished there. It would not have been possible for the Republican Party to have expended the roughly $18 million that it is reported in the New York Times was spent, if it had had only one committee or if it had only had these one or two committees resulting from the desire of the people to organ


« PreviousContinue »