Page images

New York or Massachusetts? Well, that is true. You mean he has an advantage from the standpoint that there is no publicity accruing to his campaign and there may be substantial publicity in Massachusetts or New York?

Well, naturally, that is an advantage in some respects. It may be, but on the other hand, I am somewhat of the opinion that those are State matters; that the State of Georgia or the State of Maine is entitled to decide on their own account what the limitation should be, and what the publicity should be and so on.

Without having thought it through carefully, my offhand judgment would be that comes under the heading of “States rights" and that they should be entitled to be the judge as to what should be done under those conditions.

The CHAIRMAN. One other question and we will let you go. I know you have a busy day.

In connection with this limitation with respect to national committees, have you given any thought as to what might be a more realistic figure on that limitation? Mr. WEEKS. More realistic figure? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. WEEKS. For the Republican or the Democratic committee? The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. WEEKS. No; I have not. I think it should be substantially more than it is today.

You see, in this Presidential campaign just past, in effect, you had to do everything that was ever done in any other Presidential campaign, and then on top of that you superimposed television.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. WEEKS. You might add the cost of television and your limit would be more realistic, but I have not thought of a figure. I think it should be substantially higher, because I think it is completely unrealistic today.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Weeks, we will not keep you any longer.
Mr. WEEKS. May 1, Mr. Chairman, make a suggestion?

The CHAIRMAN. You certainly may; we would like to have any suggestion you have to offer.

Mr. WEEKS. Before I am excused I have a suggestion which I think has some merit or I would not make it.

I think your committee could give consideration to making individual contributions up to an amount not to exceed, we will say, $1,000 in any event, tax-exempt. If a man gives $25 or $50 or $100, or, say, not to exceed $500 or $1,000—I think I might put the limitation at $500 and certainly not over a thousand I think you should consider making such a contribution tax-exempt.

Now, you might ask me why I make what seems to me such a radical—or may seem to some such a radical suggestion—but we have to have government, and in order to have government we have to have elections, and certainly there is no more desirable occupation than to try to get the kind of government that you or I may believe in, and I say that one of the big handicaps naturally is that you give money and then you pay a tax on it. Then why isn't it, as I see it, very desirable to let a man who wants to participate in getting the kind of government he believes in and wants to work for it, to let him make his contribution to the attainment of that objective and have it taxfree! I think that is something your committee could well consider.

The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate having that suggestion and I do not consider it radical in any sense of the word, particularly if it is a limited amount such as $500.

As a matter of fact, we have had very serious suggestions made here that the Congress appropriate sums for the two national parties to conduct national elections. Of course, that immediately raises all kinds of problems and regulations and government control, and what happens if you have three parties, or four parties, or five parties? However, I believe if anyone who has the welfare of this country at heart recognizes the vital importance of conducting a campaign, and that it is the very essence of our democracy.

I do not think your suggestion is a radical one at all. I think this committee will give it very serious consideration.

Mr. WEEKS. I hope you will.

The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of fact, we have a gentleman from the Internal Revenue Department here this morning, and we are going to ask him some questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Weeks.
Mr. WEEKS. Thank you, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I wish for you every success in your new post.




The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gray, we are very glad to have you here this morning and we appreciate your coming.

We understand your State has recently enacted a new Corrupt Practices Act, and we would like to have you tell us about it, what its provisions are, and how it is working.

Mr. GRAY. In November of 1951 we did enact both a complete recodification of the mechanics of our election laws, and in addition thereto enacted a rather strict law that would be called a Corrupt Practices Act, I presume. It has to do with the manner in which expenditures may be made and the limitations on contributions and prohibiting contributions from certain individuals and groups, and Îimiting the amount of contribution at $1,000 from any individual or group, and laying down a strict method of expenditures. Would you like for me to hit a few high spots of that law?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we would appreciate it if you would go into considerable details. Do you have a copy of the law?

Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I wonder if you would mind leaving a copy for our records?

Mr. Gray. I would be delighted, both to leave you a copy of the law and also a few forms that had to be drafted to make it possible to comply with.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. GRAY. When a person becomes a candidate in the primary, he must immediately appoint a campaign treasurer. He may have as many deputy treasurers as he pleases, but he must have at least one. He is permitted to appoint himself as campaign treasurer, if he prefers, but that is merely in connection with some minor offices where there

is paid

would be very little activity and there would be no need to have any elaborate system, but for very large offices or larger offices, they appoint someone else as campaign treasurer.

All contributions must be channeled through that campaign treasurer, and he is required to deposit them in a designated depository, which must be a chartered bank in the State, within 24 hours after it is received.

Then, in getting that out and expending it, the campaign treasurer is required to have the authorization of the candidate, and there must be a receipt from the person to whom the money is paid; whether it be a printer, publisher, or whatever it is for, they must sign a receipt. Then the campaign treasurer writes out a draft on the depository, and all of that is on one sheet. The three forms are printed on one sheet and folded in what you might call a voucher form. That goes to the depository, the bank, and the money out in that way.

At the end of the campaign the depository must make a report to the office where the candidate qualified for the State office, which is with the secretary of state itself.

The CHAIRMAN. The bank itself must do that?

Mr. Gray. The bank must make the report and send in all of these vouchers.

The candidate or the campaign treasurer is required to make a periodical report. There are two so-called major candidates—for United States Senator or for governor—who must file a report every week on Monday morning. All others are permitted to make their reports monthly. And on those reports they must list by name and amount every contribution received, and they must list their expenditures by purpose and by amount.

Our law does not place a limitation on the amount the candidate may spend, but evidently the Legislature of Florida in enacting this law had in mind the need, first, of bringing all expenditures and contributions out in the open.

The CHAIRMAN. It provides publicity, does it?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. How is that publicity provided for?

Mr. GRAY. Legally they must file these reports. The candidates for United States Senator or for governor file every week, and the press, of course, has access to them immediately when they are filed.

The CHAIRMAN. Do those reports show all the receipts and all the expenditures?

Mr. GRAY. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. On a weekly basis?

Mr. GRAY. On a weekly basis for those two offices—United States Senator and governor.

The CHAIRMAN. For the two State-wide offices?

Mr. Gray. Yes. All others who are candidates are required to report monthly regardless of what offices they seek.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any limitation on the amount any individual can contribute ?

Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir; $1,000.
The CHAIRMAN. This year was the first year the law operated ?
Mr. GRAY. Yes, sir.


The CHAIRMAN. And, of course, you had a State-wide election; did

you not? You had the election of a new governor?

Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. How did that law operate?

Mr. Gray. On the whole, it operated very well-better than I anticipated. There seemed to be a rather general acceptance and a rather general belief that it was much better than anything we had had heretofore. There has been some expression from some legislators elected to the next legislature who say there could be some few changes made. Only a very few have expressed themselves where I could hear, though, who thought we should change any of these rigid requirements. The general opinion is that they should remain, that they had worked well, that it brought into the open the amounts contributed, the sources of the contributions, and the amounts expended, and the purposes for which expended.

The CHAIRMAN. Did it tend to reduce the cost of campaigns?

Mr. Gray. That is problematical, because I think everyone in Florida who was familiar with Florida politics and campaigns for the last 30 or 40 years would readily admit that in past years there has been much more contributed and much more expended in those campaigns than was reported.

Now, up until this new law was enacted, there was a limit on campaign expenditures; but, in the passage of time, those limitations have become by common consent too small. Everyone knew they were entirely too small, that it was impossible for them to be complied with. So it had become the custom that the candidate himself only expended that much and made a report that he had only expended that muchthe lower limitation. But it was well known, it was common knowl. edge, that his friends, committees, and organizations expended a great deal more than that in his behalf.

The CHAIRMAN. What are the penalties provided for under the act?

Mr. Gray. The penalty is that if a candidate is guilty of violating the terms of the act, if he is successful, his nomination or election is automatically vacated; he forfeits his nomination or election. That is if the candidate himself is guilty of violation. Anyone else who knowingly and willingly contributes is guilty of a misdemeanor, and there is a fine and imprisonment imposed.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose someone contributes by subterfuge or otherwise $2,000. He is subject to fine and imprisonment for doing it?

Mr. GRAY. If it could be proven, of course, in a criminal prosecution that he had done it knowingly, he would be subject to fine and imprisonment.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any limitation on the source of contributions?

Mr. Gray. Only by eliminating certain sources. No corporation may contribute, no one holding a liquor permit, either a corporation or an officer in a corporation holding a liquor permit, no one holding a racing permit or any officer of a race track. They are prohibited from contributing anything at all.

The CHAIRMAN. I notice there was considerable publicity about certain elements of the gambling fraternity, shall we say, contributing to certain campaigns in Florida. Has this law tended to reduce that sort of thing?


Mr. Gray. Yes; in that it specifies that no one connected with race tracks, no one holding a race-track permit, may contribute.

The CHAIRMAN. Would that include someone operating a handbook?

Mr. Gray. I should think so, although a handbook is illegal in Florida. But I think that would be in connection with racing, anyway.

The CHAIRMAN. How is the publicity phase operated where the candidates for governor, for instance, file these reports each weekthrough the newspapers ? Mr. Gray. You want me to be perfectly frank on this? The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely.

Mr. GRAY. I do not wish to exaggerate, but I frequently had to shove reporters out of the way before I could get the papers filed myself, because they would grab them just as soon as they came in. I had to plead with them to let me open the mail of the candidates, as they all stood around to get these figures. There was splendid publicity; the press covered it thoroughly.

The CHAIRMAN. And the minute the reports came in on Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning, the papers would cover it?

Mr. GRAY. Yes. The press covered contributions down, I think, to $5; they had a policy of covering contributions down to $5. Anybody who contributed as much as $5 or more was listed.

The CHAIRMAN. Were there many large contributors!
Mr. GRAY. Not a great many; no,

sir. The CHAIRMAN. Did you have many people who would give, say, $100 this week and maybe next month give another $100?

Mr. Gray. Yes, sir; there was quite a number of those. I do not know what the purpose there was. I do not think it was for the

pur: pose of covering up, because they knew we published it. It might have been done for their own convenience; they could better contribute $100 this week and another $100 next week. The CHAIRMAN. How many candidates did you have for governor?

. Mr. GRAY. We had three major candidates this time in the Democratic primary, and two in the Republican.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the total spent by all of them? Mr. GRAY. I am afraid I have not any total of the amount spent by the candidates. I do have the exact amount spent by the successful candidate for governor, and he also, of course, was the successful Democratic nominee. He spent $251,960.37 in his primary, and he had $252,546.21 as contributions. In the general election, he spent $7,377.54, and the contributions for the general election were $6,791.70. That was a little more than any other candidate spent in the primaries.

But there were two other candidates in Democratic primaries who spent almost as much as the successful candidate did.

The CHAIRMAN. How would you say those figures compare with 4 years ago when you did not have this law? Mr. GRAY. Compared with 4 years ago, I go back to the statement

I I made a few minutes ago that the candidate himself only reported what was then the local custom, which was $15,000. So he usually reported $14,000 and some hundred, and that was the report. But I would have no way of knowing, officially or otherwise, what was spent 4 years ago had it not been for the investigations held in our State and which went primarily into the race-track gambling and so forth and which developed the fact that the successful candidate for

« PreviousContinue »