the question of radio and television should be recognized as of very special importance and subjected, perhaps, to better control than some of the other forms of publicity.

I would also suggest that the limitation on the duration of the campaign is worth consideration, both as a favorable influence in limiting the expenditure of money and also in protecting the health of candidates, and saving time for all concerned, and shortening the period of national disruption and turmoil, which exists in campaigns. I find visitors from other countries commenting, "Well, you cannot do much during the campaign." We find that to be true in our own business. Anything which would favor the limitation of the length of the campaign, without limiting the ability of the candidates to make their views known, I think is to the good.

In that connection, radio and television have been very helpful in permitting mass communication by candidates to the voters. Therefore, they are favorable factors, as regards the argument for the limitation of the length of campaigns. As to how that could be done legally, I do not know. Perhaps one way to accomplish this would be to hold the conventions later. If the conventions were held in August, instead of in July, that would automatically take about a month off the campaign, which I think is to the good.

Returning to the question of the over-all limitation on expenditures, there are certain matters which are not susceptible to easy answer, and maybe it is not too important or too necessary to answer them, if the main factors are controlled.

The question of the allocation, for example, of expenses between the candidate and the party was mentioned, and is significant, although not so significant on a national basis. I could conceive, for example, of an arrangement under which the parties were permitted the allocation of a certain number of dollars for their continuing operations— for the overhead of maintaining the party-irrespective of the candidate. For example, I think both parties maintain headquarters here, which are expensive to operate. They are a part of the cost of our party system. In determining the total expenditures, there might be a definite amount permitted them for that purpose. Then, on top of that, a secondary amount is allocated for a specific campaign for a specific office.

Referring to some other matters referred to in your staff memorandum, which I thought was excellently prepared and very suggestive of good questions, I feel the present provisions against contributions by such composite entities as corporations and labor unions are appropriate, and should be maintained, even though they are not entirely effective. I think they are fairly effective and are to the good. There may be more violations of those than I was aware of, but in my own experience I did not see any instances of their violation, although I heard reports of violations.

Furthermore, if the total campaign expenditures were limited somewhat, the importance of contributions from those sources is reduced, because it should be possible to secure the total amount of the allowed limit from legal sources, so that there would not be, perhaps, the pressure to try to figure out ways of getting corporations or labor unions to contribute. As I say, I think the present arrangements in those respects should be continued.

So, just to summarize my views, it seems to me the idea of limiting expenses is desirable. In order to be effective, it would have to be done by a limitation on the over-all expenditures for a given candidate. To accomplish that presents extremely difficult problems. It is not susceptible to exact control, but by specific control over certain of the most influential and most expensive media, a great deal could be accomplished, which to a considerable degree would achieve that objective. That concludes my general observations. If you have any questions I can answer, I will be glad to do so.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Just let me ask a few questions, and then I am sure the rest of the committee have some questions.

Your group of Volunteers for Stevenson operated separately from the National Democratic Committee?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; they did, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you raise funds?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; we raised funds. Perhaps I should explain the nature of our organization in order to clarify this. The National Volunteers for Stevenson was organized as a corporation, not for profit, under Illinois law. It had several objectives. One was to stimulate the organization of State committees, operating under approximately the same name. I mean there was the New York Volunteers for Stevenson, the Missouri Volunteers for Stevenson, and so forth.

The CHAIRMAN. Were they incorporated in the various States?
Mr. SMITH. I believe not. Some were; some were not.

Mr. JOHN P. BROWN. I think very few bothered to incorporate. Mr. SMITH. I think it depended a little on the local laws. So the first objective was the stimulation of the organization of these State committees. They, in turn, stimulated the organization of local committees in their own States. For example, in New York there was the Westchester Volunteers for Stevenson, and so forth. Similarly, in Connecticut there was the New Haven Volunteers for Stevenson. Our relationship was always entirely with the State committees. It was a highly decentralized operation. All we did was to send somebody out in the State to talk about getting these things set up. There were people waiting who would say, "Is it all right if we go ahead?" So our function, first of all, was the stimulation and guidance of those groups.

In the second place, we prepared brochures and other material for those groups, so they could write in to us and say, "Send us 100,000 copies on this subject, or that subject."

In the third place, we had our own publicity staff which prepared brochures in connection with radio and television programs which were sponsored by the National Volunteers for Stevenson.

In the fourth place, our function was to raise money. We had a finance committee of our own, and solicited funds by various methods, including telegrams, advertising, and so forth. In addition to our solicitation of funds, the individual State committees solicited funds on their own, some of which were transmitted to us, but a very small amount in total. They spent most of their money in their own areas, but some of their money came to our committee.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Did your parent committee make an accounting of receipts and expenditures pursuant to Illinois law?

Mr. SMITH. I do not think we were covered under that. We made an accounting of receipts and expenditures pursuant to the Federal law, which we have here.

Mr. McCULLOCH. And that has been filed?

Mr. SMITH. That has been filed; yes.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Do you know whether or not the committees in the respective States filed reports?

Mr. SMITH. I think most of the committees in the separate States were classed as local committees; they were only operating in the one State. Would they have to file reports?

Mr. JOHN P. BROWN. No, sir. We made it a point not to establish local committees as branches of the National Volunteers. There was a certain relationship between the two, but we did not give them peremptory orders. We did not send them money, and so forth. We did that because of the definition of "political committees" in the Corrupt Practices Act.

Now, the local committees, as far as I know, with the single excep-. tion of the Illinois local committee, which stood in a peculiar relationship to the national-it was practically a branch of us, and we recognized it as a branch, and that was the only one-the other local committees of New York, Connecticut, and so forth considered themselves, as far as I know-and certainly we considered them-as purely local committees. Therefore, they did not come within the reach of the Corrupt Practices Act, and they did not file with the Clerk of the House.

Mr. McCULLOCH. But they did file with their own respective States where the State laws required such filing?

Mr. JOHN P. BROWN. I have no doubt they complied with the State laws.

Mr. SMITH. I would like to emphasize that this was a highly decentralized operation. Our committee had no jurisdiction and attempted none over any of those other committees. We simply helped them to organize; we sent them material for their use. Beyond that we had really no close relationship with them at all. They were on a mailing list, and we would send out and say "Here is a new brochure we prepared. How many copies would you like?" And they would write in for buttons, and things of that sort. But, as far as their operation was concerned, we did not take any jurisdiction over them, because the time was short and we felt the best and most effective means was to get the committees to work under their own steam, which they did.

Mr. McCULLOCH. I take it from your statement, therefore, that the parent committee does not have an accurate report as to their expenditures.

Mr. SMITH. No; we have no information about that at all.
The CHAIRMAN. But you have the aggregate of your own?
Mr. SMITH. We have the aggregate of our own.

The CHAIRMAN. What is that aggregate?

Mr. SMITH. The aggregate is $749,000. I have a statement through November 20, and there was $784,592 through November 20.

Mr. JOHN P. BROWN. Contributions?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; that is contributions. Our expenditures at that point were $740,000. We had $43,000 in the bank on that date. We have to keep our office open for awhile; we have some communication

expenditures to balance our TV and radio accounts, and hope to come out about even.

Mr. McCULLOCH. You are solvent?

Mr. SMITH. We are now. This was a business operation, and we had to keep it that way, because we had no borrowing power and no credit.

The CHAIRMAN. Were the most of your funds used for radio and television?

Mr. SMITH. Our main expenditure was $421,000 for radio and television, $77,000 for spots, $49,000 for newspaper advertising, and $28,000 for buttons. The other items are travel, telegraphic communication, salaries for our staff, and so forth.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the cost of a Nation-wide television program?

Mr. SMITH. As I recall, we figured about $55,000. Is that right? Mr. JOHN P. BROWN. Yes; except for one of the great performances like the Madison Square Garden, which I think cost $120,000. But $33,000, $38,000, $52,000, and $56,000 is about the way it ran.

Mr. KEATING. Is that all stations, or the chief ones?

Mr. JOHN P. BROWN. The national, and as many stations as we could get. We could not always get them all in.

The CHAIRMAN. I presume the Madision Square figure, and the others, include radio and television.

Mr. SMITH. That figure of $55,000 is simply a guess.

The CHAIRMAN. But it was for both radio and television?

Mr. SMITH. Yes. The reason Madison Square Garden went so high is because in the first place it was for the fullest use of the many stations; in the second place, there were heavy preemption charges because of the fact we had taken over time from some commercial broadcasters.

Mr. KEATING. And when you take over the time you must pay the amount that the commercial programs would have paid had they gone on?

Mr. SMITH. Plus expenses, including the fees of the advertising agency and everything else. That is one of the reasons why I feel there should be some close supervision of all the radio and television outlets, because these expenditures run into terrific figures and are really unproductive.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you have any difficulty in obtaining what you considered satisfactory television and radio time?

Mr. SMITH. I would say generally not.

The CHAIRMAN. Generally not?

Mr. SMITH. If we could pay for it. The problem was paying for it, rather than getting it.

The CHAIRMAN. But there was not any problem about getting it? Mr. SMITH. No serious problem. Once or twice we would have a little argument with the local station, but we have no complaints

about that.

Mr. Brown [John P. Brown] points out that the most of this time we used was arranged for by the Democratic National Committee very early. That was one of the reasons why there was not much preemption in our case.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the law, what was the total amount of money you could have received?

26585-52--3

Mr. SMITH. We could have received $3 million.
The CHAIRMAN. You would have received $3 million?
Mr. SMITH. If we could have gotten it.

Mr. JOHN P. BROWN. We wish we had.

Mr. SMITH. We would have if we had started earlier.

The CHAIRMAN. From where did the most of your campaign contributions come?

Mr. SMITH. They came from several sources. We received a great deal in individual contributions from people who sent in money. We had a finance committee that was very effective and went around to people they thought would be interested. I would put that in the category of general solicitation. In addition to that, we received a very substantial amount from telegrams we sent out putting forth the plea that it was for keeping our candidate on the air, and we got $128,00 from that telegraphic campaign.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Over whose name did that telegram appear?

Mr. SMITH. That telegram was signed by Senators Kefauver, Douglas, and Fulbright, asking that they send their contributions to the National Volunteers for Stevenson at the Abraham Lincoln Hotel, as I recall.

Mr. McCULLOCH. From what source did the telegraphic mailing list come?

Mr. SMITH. Most of the names, so far as I know, were supplied by the various State units. We asked one of the States to give use suggestions as to whom a telegram of this sort would appeal.

Mr. KEATING. They claim that one was sent to the Republican campaign headquarters asking for a few dollars.

Mr. SMITH. That was balanced by a letter to Governor Stevenson signed by General Eisenhower asking for funds.

Mr. KEATING. You would not recall whether he complied?

Mr. SMITH. He got a very nice form letter in which he said he hoped he would see fit to support his candidacy.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith and Mr. Brown, from your experienceand I am sure Mr. Brown is very familiar with the Corrupt Practices Act-what specific recommendations, other than the ones you have already made relative to radio and television time, would you suggest to the committee?

Mr. SMITH. I would suggest an attempt to provide an over-all limitation. The radio and television limitation is just a part of the overall. I would think your objective-it may or may not be attainablewould be an over-all limitation on expenditures by a candidate for the Presidency.

Mr. KEATING. By all organizations and committees ?

Mr. SMITH. By all organizations and committees. And, in connection with that, he would have to have authority to control what organization was going to work for him, because he could be sabotaged by the forming of an organization which would work indiscriminately. The CHAIRMAN. Could you suggest how much was spent in this last campaign?

Mr. SMITH. I can give you better than a guess. In the New York Times of this morning, they have made a careful study of this. I can give you no definite figures, but on the front page of today's New York Times there is an excellent article, I believe.