Section 599 makes it unlawful for a candidate for Senate or House directly or indirectly to solicit support for his candidacy by promising to use his influence to secure employment, either public or private, for another. That certainly is a limitation upon free speech, a free press.

If I cannot lawfully say that I will give you a job if you support me, is not my right to say what I please limited?

Nor can I by word or publication lawfully threaten to deprive any person of employment or benefit provided for or made possible by an act of Congress (sec. 601).

The constitutional right of free speech and a free press is further limited by section 602, which makes it a criminal offense for a Senator, Congressman, or, for that matter, for any individual who receives for his services any compensation from money derived from the Federal Treasury, to ask or even hint that any individual receiving compensation from the Federal Government make a contribution toward the election of any candidate for Federal office.

Is there any validity to the argument that I may say what I please to anyone, in view of these statutory provisions?

I cannot, even by a hard-luck story to the employees in my office or to a member of my family, if one happened to be on the Federal payroll, suggest that I would like a little financial help in my campaign to be reelected.

Nor can I go into any building in which individuals receiving a part of their compensation from the Federal Treasury are working, and solicit or receive either contributions of money or anything of value to aid me in my campaign. This section of the law illustrates that the right to free speech is not absolute, at least as to the place where it may be exercised.

In the building just described, I keep my mouth shut and remain silent on the subject of political contributions. Or, if I speak as I may wish if convicted, I go to jail.

And, if either the publisher and editor of the North Carolina publication or the Wall Street Journal sent an issue of its publication soliciting funds for a political purpose into such a building, they would be subject to criminal prosecution. To that extent the right of a free press is denied.

Then, my right to free speech or to a free press is limited by the statute (sec. 604) which prohibits solicitation of contributions of money or things of value for political purposes from persons on relief. And, if I, at the request of a constituent, obtain and give to the chairman of any political committee to be used in political activities the names of individuals who receive compensation, employment, or benefits from the Federal Government, I am guilty of a criminal offense. Certainly, that section limits the right of free speech.

If the postmaster in my home town owns the local paper, is not the right to a free press-to say what he pleases editorially or through a paid political advertisement signed by him, limited by section 607 which makes it an offense for anyone who is in the service of the Federal Government to give any money or other valuable thing to me when I am a candidate for Federal office?

Certainly, the right of any able, willing friend to free speech is limited by the statutory limitation upon the amount which he may

contribute to hire campaign speakers or halls where they may speak in my behalf-exercise their right to free speech.

Nor can my willing, financially able friend use more than $5,000 to purchase space in a newspaper to advocate my election (sec. 608). Should a publisher or an editor just because he is a publisher or an editor exercise a greater right? My friend or I, if we have the money and the inclination, can have $5,000 worth of a free press or free speech and the only suggestion I make or made is the query, "Shall another individual, just because he is a publisher or an editor, have a greater degree of free speech, free press?"

Again, the right to a free press is completely denied to banks organized under the Federal law and to corporations insofar as the advocacy of the election or defeat of any candidate for Federal office is involved. (sec 610).

Nor, under section 611, can any individual or firm, contracting with the United States, contribute "anything of value" to a political committee or to the candidate for public office, for any political purpose or use.

Notwithstanding the constitutional guaranty of a free speech, your right, my right, to publish or distribute our views concerning candidates for Federal office is denied unless that publication carries the names of those responsible for the publication or distribution of the article (sec. 612).

And in Michigan, the right to a free press is limited by the statute which makes it a criminal offense to publish any false statement or charges reflecting upon any candidate's character, morality, or integrity (Compiled Laws, sec. 196.17). The statute supplants the remedy for libel.

In Michigan we have another statute which provides that no publisher of a newspaper or other periodical shall insert either in his advertising or reading columns any political advertisement unless it is also stated that it is a paid advertisement (Compiled Laws 196.16). This, again, is a limitation upon a free press as well as upon the right of free speech of one who wishes to aid a candidate but does not want his name used in connection with such effort. This statute is often ignored.

It is interesting as well as somewhat amusing to hear some publishers and editors argue about their right to express "their" views, when we know that some papers purchase their editorials from professional propagandists.

When editorials are so purchased and printed, just how great is the distinction between an editorial of that kind and a paid advertisement?

Now, in answer to the statement that it is not workable, I wish to add that if the Federal Government can require candidates and committees to file some kind of statement of contributions and expenditures, is there any reason why the Congress does not have the same right to say that the publisher of editorial political propaganda must file a statement?

Permit me to follow out the suggestion which I made, which was this: That if the individual is to have a limit placed upon his financial contribution, be used to purchase space in a publication, is there any reason why special privilege should be granted to either a

publisher or an editor to contribute without limitation. Why distinguish between one class of citizen and those of another group?

For example, I am limited by the $5,000 provision. If I happen to be a multimillionaire and I care to invest my millions and buy a pub publication, then I am unlimited; there is no limitation upon what I may spend if I print my views and call them editorial comments. The attitude of some of the publishers and editors is expressed in an editorial sent to me today from the Kinston Daily Free Press, of Kinston, N. C., and because it shows the type of some criticism made every time anyone suggests any law which might interfere with what some publishers and editors think is their right to print what they think they ought to do, I want to read from it. The editorial will be printed at the end of my testimony.

The caption is "Asininity aggravated," and then it says:

The Special House Committee on Campaign Spending promptly rejected a proposal by Representative Clare E. Hoffman, Republican of Michigan, to limit editorial space in a newspaper given to any particular candidate or party.

Of all the asinine, foolish proposls, that have come from some Congressmen, whose smartness has never been their chief characteristic, this takes the cake. Indeed, it is asininity aggravated and personified.

This editor does not seem to think too highly of Congressmen generally.

1

We are wondering if Representative Hoffman ever read the Constitution of the United States.

And I would like to reply, I wonder if this editor has ever read the Supreme Court decisions or any statutes which do limit free press and free speech.

Then to continue to quote:

If so, if he knows anything about what is commonly known as the Bill of Rights, which it distinctly says that Congress cannot make any laws affecting the freedom of the press. In order for Mr. Hoffman to get a proper perspective, somebody ought to tell him that the editorial page of a newspaper belongs to the editor of that newspaper and it his prerogative solely to say what shall go on, that, page and how much.

Of course, that is not accurate because the editor cannot, if he were so inclined to, print something in an editorial which is obscene. Nor can he go out on the street and cuss and swear. His "free press and free speech" have been limited.

Mr. KARSTEN. Yes.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Well, and so is every political advertisement from any individual who thinks that he is correct in supporting some candidate limited by the amount which can be paid for political ads. Do you not think those people feel they are contributing something to the public interest, even those who contribute to the limit of $5,000 to buy space to express their views? Do you not think those people who bought $5,000 worth of newspaper space thought they were advocating something that was in the public interest?

Mr. KARSTEN. No; I do not think everyone did.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Not everyone, but all who were sincere.

Mr. KARSTEN. But I cannot believe but a newspaper is clothed with a public interest which I think is a little different to that in a published advertisement.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Surely. But do you contend that if I, as an individual, cannot contribute more than $5,000 in support of a candidate, or through a committee, that I should be permitted to evade that lim

itation simply by the purchase of a newspaper and by the use of editorials without limit to express practically the same views that I had in an advertisement?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hoffman, I have not read the citation, but my recollection of article I, I believe of the Bill of Rights, reads somewhat as follows:

"Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of the press, of religion," and so on.

Mr. HOFFMAN. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, if we should undertake to pass a law which says that the editorial comments in a newspaper should be limited, I cannot conceive that not being a violation of that constitutional provision.

Mr. HOFFMAN. But, Mr. Boggs, that right has successfully been limited by the Federal statute which forbids the use of the mails to obscene and other matter-by States where statutes carry like restrictions upon the uttering of profane words. Let me also answer in this way:

If Congress has the right to limit the amount which can be contributed to a political campaign, is not that a prohibition on my right to free speech-a free press? Yet there is no provision against my writing editorials, purchasing a paper and using editorials.

The CHAIRMAN. There is not, except the economic prohibition. Mr. HOFFMAN. Yes. And if I had the money and I can purchase a paper, and suppose I am an ardent Republican, should I not be limited to how much space I can use in advocating the election of the candidate to carry out Republican philosophy if he is elected? The CHAIRMAN. You say, "Shouldn't I?"

Mr. HOFFMAN. Should the law, I mean.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think the law should. For example, I ran for governor in my State about a year ago, and sometimes I might very well have personally felt, after having read some of the comments, as you do; but it seems to me that we are talking about two different things. First, you are talking about a law to be enacted by the Congress dealing with elections. Those laws would be enacted under specific provisions of the Constitution which delegates to the Congress the right to set up qualification of electors and then provides the method of election.

But, in the same Constitution, in article I of the Bill of Rights, is a specific provision that Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of the press.

Mr. HOFFMAN. In the first place, the States-not the Federal Government-fix_the qualifications of electors-United States Constitution, article I, section 2-but you quote correctly as to freedom of speech.

The CHAIRMAN: Freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, and so on, and there has been a lot of argument about article I in its application to what freedom of religion means.

But you are dealing with two specific sections of the Constitution, as I see it.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Very well. Let me ask you this question: In your opinion, legislation that limits me to the amount of $5,000, expenditure of $5,000

The CHAIRMAN. Is constitutional?

26585-52-15

Mr. HOFFMAN. Is constitutional?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. HOFFMAN. In other words, under that provision, my right of free speech is limited. Suppose I want to hire a hall where I can speak, and I might want orators to speak for me, I cannot spend more than $5,000 for that purpose.

The CHAIRMAN. Personally you cannot.

Mr. HOFFMAN. No, nor can anybody else in my behalf.

The CHAIRMAN. You could have a group of committees.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Yes, but the Federal law limits me to the amount which I can spend and it also limits the State and county committees. The CHAIRMAN. It does.

Mr. HOFFMAN. So that my right of free speech is automatically limited.

The CHAIRMAN. In elections.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Because Congress has the right to.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Yes. So we are-and I am not talking about editorials on any other subject than those in connection with the election of candidates to Federal office.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Mr. KARSTEN. But your limitation upon expenditures is not a limitation upon your freedom of speech.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Suppose I wanted to hire a hall

Mr. KARSTEN. That would not necessarily be a limitation on your freedom of speech. You could stand out on the street

Mr. HOFFMAN. That is pure quibbling

Mr. KARSTEN. I mean you are not limited in your freedom of speech by limiting the amount of money you may expend.

Mr. HOFFMAN. I can talk if I am physically able from the beginning of the campaign to the end, but in order to make the free speech effective, I must have an audience. And I am now limited in the amount I can spend to collect, house, and entertain my audience.

Let me complete the quotation from this Kinston editorial:

Somebody ought to tell him [Mr. Hoffman] that the editorial page of a newspaper belongs to the editor of that paper and it is his prerogative solely to say what shall go on that page and how much.

Representative Hoffman, nor any other asinine Congressman, has an infernal thing to do with it.

The Free Press is grateful that the committee, of which Mr. Hoffman is a member, had sense enough to discard the proposal which we believe will take second place to none in the category of asinine, foolish, and nonsensical ideas.

That is an expression of free speech with which I personally find no fault. But it has nothing to do with elections or candidates. It just proves the fact that there is no limitation, that anyone has the right to express his views as he wishes, as long as a Federal or State law is not violated, and if he wishes to express them in that manner, it is all right with me. I think, however, the gentleman is completely mistaken as to the power of the Congress. He knows he cannot print in his editorial column obscene matter.

Now, before concluding with that, let me just include an editorial that came to me just yesterday:

Does the press report correctly that he would place a limitation on the editorial space devoted to a candidate? If so, we are not aware as to what has happened to our Congressman.