Mr. KEATING. Through an individual?

Mr. JOHN P. BROWN. Yes. We hoped they would come back in that way. Sometimes they did not come back. We would get one contribution of something like $1,000 from an organization represented by a whole lot of letters-I do not know what it was; from a labor union-and we would send that back and point it out to them, and we would get a very prompt letter back saying, why, "We are not a labor union; this is a voluntary contribution which was collected over a period of weeks." So we would take that, keep it, and we reported it. However, the contributions which I saw-and I saw most of them as they came through--were small. There were a great many $10 checks and $5 checks; and, of course, in the reports to the Clerk of the House, as you know, we only report contributions of $100 and up. The others can be lumped. So that is about the story on the extent of the contributions.

The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of national policy, with national campaigns now costing $50,000,000 to $100,000,000, or maybe more, do not you gentlemen feel that this is a field in which Congress should legislate? Do you not think, if you spend about $100,000,000, you may be able to spend $1,000,000,000?

Mr. SMITH. I personally think, for many reasons, it is extremely important that an effort be made to control these expenditures. They are not only uneconomical but put a premium on the fellow who can raise the most money, and it also suggests the possibility of improper influence. I think the objective is clear. I think the method of arriving at it is very perplexing.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no question about that.

Mr. JOHN P. BROWN. I will just add that I think it is one of the most important questions before the Congress today; that is, of the internal problems. It seems to me that the political campaign can degenerate through the medium of money until much of its real value is gone, and it looks as if we were on that road now. This committee is obviously extremely alert to the problem, and it seems to me it has a great opportunity if, through its ingenuity and resources, it can work out a considerable control over those moneys. I feel that strongly, gentlemen. Mr. SMITH. I do not think you can have a perfect approach. There is not any perfect answer to the problem. The thing is to get the best answer you can just now.

Mr. JOHN P. BROWN. Take it in several bites; it may take several years to do it.

Mr. KEATING. Of course, these special committees always die in their infancy. This committee terminates its activities on the 3d of January. This is a very big question.

Mr. JOHN P. BROWN. It does indeed.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Smith and Mr. Brown; you have both been very helpful to the committee.

I would like to incorporate into the record these compilations from the New York Times of Monday, December 1, those appearing on page 1 on campaign expenditures, and the whole of page 16.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

[From the New York Times, December 1, 1952]

AT LEAST $32,155,251 SPENT ON ELECTION, SURVEY INDICATES-NEW YORK AMONG 12 STATES THAT HIT MILLION MARK-GOP TOPS DEMOCRATS

By Douglas Dales

A 48-State survey by correspondents of the New York Times to determine expenditures in the 1952 political campaign indicated that at least $32,155,251 had been spent by political organizations, independent groups, and candidates.

This was a rock-bottom figure. On the basis of it the average cost of reaching the eyes and ears of the almost 60,000,000 persons who voted for President was 54 cents.

The figure the survey shows is by no means the total that was spent. That total probably never will be ascertained.

Going into the $32,155,251 figure were only those costs that could be gleaned from officially filed reports or, in their absence, which was common, from the estimates of competent political fiscal officers or election officials.

In a few cases nothing could be obtained from these sources. spending simply could not be ascertained.

And much local

A dozen States were clearly in the million-dollar spending class-New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Oregon, Texas, California, and Washington. Two others, Indiana and Wisconsin, were so near the million-dollar mark that final reports will probably put them there.

One thing seemed clear from the survey: The estimate of $40,000,000 to $50,000,000 as the cost of the 1952 campaign to both parties, recently made by Sinclair Weeks, Finance chairman of the Republican National Committee, was no exaggeration and might turn out to have been on the conservative side.

The high cost of campaigning in this era of television, radio, and airplanes has been focusing attention in recent weeks on proposals for reforms in expenditures and the reporting of them.

Loopholes in State and Federal corrupt-practices laws relating to limits on campaign spending are widely criticized as violating the laws. With a view to rewriting the Federal law, a special committee of the House of Representatives will begin hearings in Washington today. Top officials of the major parties, television officials, and others with pertinent information have been subpenaed.

AMOUNTS FOR TELEVISION

The estimated total spent by the two major parties and their various committees for network radio and television campaigning was $3,511,800. The Republicans spent $2,083,400 and the Democrats $1,428,400.

These figures, however, do not include thousands spent on regional networks and on individual station programs throughout the country, an additional amount that easily could bring the total broadcasting bill to more than $5,000,000.

The amount of $3,511,800 was tallied from estimated figures supplied by the various networks.

Campaign reports showed that television, radio, and newspaper advertising accounted for the bulk of spending. The extensive use of television has been an important factor in increasing campaign spending.

On the other hand the use of air waves has been cited as one of the reasons to postpone the dates of the national nominating conventions, traditionally held in June or July.

It is commonly suggested that the conventions be held after Labor Day to cut the period of campaigning with the medium of television it is argued that there is no need for the present long period.

It was impossible for correspondents working on the survey to break down the spending by parties, but what could be allocated indicated that the Republicans had spent much more than the Democrats. Assignable to Republicans was $18,769,848 and to the Democrats $6,847,725.

COST PER VOTER

On the basis of an indicated spending of $1,977,188 in New York State, the cost per each of the nearly 7,000,000 voters was 28 cents. This was the same as the cost in Vermont, where a vote of 152,400 was cast and $43,249 was spent.

The cost per voter was 43 cents in Wyoming, 88 cents in Pennsylvania, 41 cents in California, and $1.19 in Connecticut.

Probably the most expensive campaign for the United States Senate was that of Senator-elect John F. Kennedy, Democrat, in Massachusetts. Mr. Kennedy reported spending $15,866, but committees on his behalf for the improvement of the shoe, fishing and other industries of the State, spent $217,995. An official report from the Kennedy campaign committee is yet to come.

Mr. Kennedy's opponent, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., who was named Saturday as the head of the United States delegation to the United Nations, reported spending $11,000. A committee working for him spent $58,413. The campaign for Senator William Benton, Democrat, defeated in Connecticut, cost about $147,000.

TWO BARRED BY SENATE

On some occasions the United States Senate, which is the sole judge of the fitness of its Members, has questioned high campaign spending. A Senator's salary is $12,500 a year.

The Senate denied a seat in 1926 to Frank L. Smith, elected from Illinois, because of his campaign financing. He reputedly spent $458,782, of which $203,000 came from officers of public utilities. He was at the time a member of the Illinois Commerce Commission, a utility regulatory body. In the same year the Senate refused to seat William S. Vare, of Pennsylvania, who reportedly spent $785,000 in the Republican primary.

One defect pointed out in the present laws is that limits are placed on a candidate's spending, and on that of the national committees, but there is no limit on the number of committees that can be set up independently.

COMMITTEES ALLOWED $3,000,000

A final filing of campaign receipts and expenses by the national political committees with the Clerk of the House of Representatives is not due until January 1. Both committees concede they spent close to the $3,000,000 allowed. The Republican budget called for putting $1,800,000 in television and radio while the Democrats planned to spend $1,500,000 in this area.

The national committees get their money largely from quotas assigned to State committees but also receive contributions directly from individuals.

The Republican senatorial and congressional committees jointly had a budget of $1,800,000, of which $1,200,000 was earmarked for House contests. The Democrats were less fortunate. Their Senate and House campaign committees raised about $82,000, which was parceled out where most needed.

The Democratic deficiency was offset in part by aid from organized labor. The American Federation of Labor spent $245,000, mostly to help congressional candidates. The Congress of Industrial Organizations similarly put up $600,000. An obstacle to the obtaining of information on campaign spending is the absence in several States of laws requiring the filing of campaign statements and the weakness of the laws in some other States. Illinois, Florida, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Nevada are among States in which no filing is required.

In Tennessee the law is so vague that the State courts held a few years ago that a candidate could not be barred from office for failing to file. South Carolina requires filing only by candidates. In Vermont, candidates are required to report primary election expenditures, but not what they spent in the general election.

The following is a summary of the campaign spending by States as reported by correspondents of the Times:

Alabama

While details are lacking, indications are that the recent campaign was the most costly in Alabama's history. Informed sources, who requested anonymity, estimated that the Democrats spent about $50,000,000 and General Eisenhower's supporters twice that figure.

These totals do not include an undetermined amount sent by the State political committees to their national organizations or the amounts that were spent by the national committees in the State. Heads of regular and volunteer organizations were unwilling to be quoted on any figures. Arizona

The State Republican committee spent $13,680 and donated $23,000 to the National Republican Committee. The Democratic State organization spent $17,858. Filing of election expenses is not required until next Thursday and it

was not known what contribution, if any, was made to the Democratic National Committee or what was spent in the State by the national committee. The Republican National Committee sent $1,000 to Arizona for use among Indian voters.

The total known expenditures of $55,538 does not take into account money spent by local political organizations, labor, and volunteer organizations. Arkansas

Arkansas does not require the filing of campaign expenditures or contributions, so it is virtually impossible to obtain anything like an accurate picture of election spending.

The Republican State organization raised $87,119, twice the amount raised in 1948. It spent $16,960 in the State. Part of this went to candidates in State and district contests. The balance of $71,159 was sent to Republican national headquarters and to the National Citizens for Eisenhower Committee.

The Democrats had a State fund goal of $100,000, but the amount raised has not been disclosed. The State committee sent $25,000 to the national party treasury. Observations indicated that the Democrats had spent far less in the campaign than the Republicans.

California

The campaign was in the million-dollar category in California. What the total figure may be awaits the untangling of collection and expense figures among a maze of overlapping professional and volunteer groups.

A survey of the principal organizations indicates that the Republicans spent roughly $1,200,000 and the Democrats $750,000, but little allowance is made in these figures for spending in legislative contests.

Some campaign spokesmen put as high as 50 percent the amount that went for radio and television, with 25 percent for literature and the rest for billboards and other items. Republican sources said $500,000 was sent to the national committee while the Democrats sent about $100,000 to their national committee.

In southern California, Republicans raised and spent $210,000 on the Presidential race alone. Financial experts put the northern California figure at more than $200,000 for San Francisco County, although this included some funds spent on legislative contests.

Democratic fiscal spokesmen said their party had spent $150,000 in the Presidential fight in northern California and twice that in the southern counties. They asserted Republican spending must have reached $2,000,000. They put their own, for all purposes, at $500,000.

Reports filed with the secretary of state on congressional fights showed the Republicans had spent at least $200,000 and the Democrats about $100,000, but persons on both sides conceded these figures were too low.

Labor leaders reported the AFL spent about $82,000 and the CIO about $50,000. Colorado

The deadline for filing campaign expenditure reports in Colorado is next Thursday, and data on total expenditures is meager. Allan Phipps, Republican finance chairman, said the State committee spent $75,000. The committee sent $55,000 to the national committee and received no aid in return. The Citizens for Eisenhower spent $8,000 at the State level, with the amounts spent by local units unavailable.

Joseph F. Little, Democratic State chairman, put the State committee's expenditures as $31,229, including $15,000 received from the Democratic National Committee.

Connecticut

It is the opinion of the Connecticut correspondent that final reports will show a record spending of at least $1,300,000 and probably closer to $1,500,000. The State law requires candidates and their committees to file on November 19, but gives party organizations until December 20 to submit reports.

Top party leaders are reluctant to talk freely on campaign costs. The Republican practice is to pay bills out of one fund, while the Democrats let their candidates operate on their own.

The correspondent's estimate takes into consideration the December 20 filings, which he estimates will show $500,000 spent by the Republican State organization and $75,000 by the Democratic.

Reports of November 19 showed $412,000 spent on the two Senate contests, with the Republican total incomplete. The later Republican reports are expected to

bring the Senate campaigns costs to $500,000. Senator William Benton, Democrat, defeated for reelection, and committees for him, spent the top amount, $147,000, Nominees for the House of Representatives spent about $75,000. The Eisenhower committee reported expenses of $113,000; the Stevenson-Sparkman fund, $6,200; the State CIO, more than $50,000; the Committee for Democratic State Legislators, $51,000; the Volunteers for Stevenson, $26,000; the Fairfield County Republican Organization, $58,000.

Delaware

Delaware law does not require the filing of reports until December 15, but high party officials said Republican spending at the State level was about $110,000 and Democratic spending about $75,000. These figures do not include the spending of candidates or their committees or the spending of independent groups for the national tickets.

Florida

Kirk A. Landon, State chairman of the Florida for Eisenhower group, estimated that $90,000 had been spent by the State Republican Executive Committee and various independent groups. Florida law does not require State political committees to file campaign expense reports. The $90,000 does not include $48,700 sent to the Republican National Committee.

J. Irvin Walden, secretary-treasurer of the Democratic State Committee, said the State organization had spent $15,000 and had sent nothing to the national committee. Independent Democratic groups and county organizations spent $50,000, according to a State committee official who asked not to be identified. Georgia

In Georgia, the Republican organization made the greatest effort in financial activity, with the State Central Committee reporting collections of $126,000. In contrast to this, State Democrats raised only $78,000.

The Republican organization sent $62,000 to the national party, spent $49,000 in the State, and retained $15,000 to continue its activities.

The Democrats sent a total of $55,000 to their national committee and spent about $23,800 for State and local contests.

Idaho

The campaign cost a minimum of $142,000 in Idaho. On the Republican side $78,000 was expended in the State; $22,200 was sent to the national committee; about $12,000 was spent on visits of Senator Robert A. Taft and General Eisenhower; and $6,000 by the Eisenhower-Nixon committees. Republican battalions to get out the vote spent $5,000. Democrats put spending at the State level at $10,000 and estimated $8,800 more had been spent by county organizations. Illinois

Governor Stevenson's home State has no law requiring candidates and committees generally to file reports with the secretary of state. It is the opinion of the correspondent that $1,250,000 was spent by both parties. Because of the absence of a filing law, it is probable that no one ever knows for certainty what is spent by the 102 county organizations, the State committees, and the hundreds of independent and volunteers groups at the various levels of Government.

Attempts to get any sort of a figure on Democratic spending were rebuffed by party officials. Edward Ryerson, chairman of the Republican Citizens Finance Committee, said that $870,000 had been spent by the committee in Illinois and declined to say what, if any, contribution above that had been made to the national committee. His committee collected $970,000 and had a balance of $250,000 from last year, which made $1,220,000 available for the campaign.

Offices of the Citizens for Eisenhower and Volunteers for Stevenson have been disbanded. Balances in their accounts, if they existed, were turned over to State party organizations, which are said to be working on an audit of these independent groups.

Indiana

Campaign spending appeared to have reached a new high in Indiana with the Republicans reporting total expenditures of $636,364 and the Democrats $284,018. Fund raising by both parties was vigorous and successful and one veteran Republican said the number of contributors had been the greatest in his memory. The United Republican Finance Committee raised $441,897, the bulk from a door-to-door canvassing drive. It distributed this as follows: $217,363 to county committees, $195,210 to the State committee, and $16,833 to district committees.