publican candidate at the convention at Chicago. That was but a rumor, but if it is true, and if there is to be a limitation put on financial contributions, newsgathering organizations, like the AP and the UP, and others, and publications generally, through donations of spaces, should have some restrictions put on them as to what part they shall take in the campaign. That is if legislation is to be effective and consistent.

As you gentlemen who have given this subject more thought than the average Member of Congress, or the average citizen, well know, the moment you attempt to control political activities you run into two difficulties at the outset. When you attempt to limit either contributions or time to be spent in political activities, you are confronted by the guaranty of free speech and a free press. Just how to limit political activities and avoid that constitutional right is something that is not easy of solution. But the Congress and the States have limited both by limiting the amount of money a candidate or a political committee can spend for either. The courts have sanctioned that legislation.

In my judgment, there should be a limitation, not only on financial contributions but as to the time and editorial comment which can be given in support of any particular candidate, or political philosophy. Otherwise, it is obvious that the statement made, I think during the campaign—at least it was in the press-that no one should become a candidate, and I think it was for Senator, unless he was a wealthy man, would be translated into practice. Only men of wealth would be in Congress. If that is to be the measure, in my judgment you would lose many good, able, conscientious public servants, especially in the lower House.

Mr. KARSTEN. Money does help, does it not, Mr. Hoffman?
Mr. HOFFMAN. There is no question about that.

Now, although I have had a book in my house since it was printed, I happened to pick it up night before last, Rockefeller, the Industrialist, and I was so interested by the statements in that book that it was sometime around 3 o'clock in the morning before I finished it. If you will take a look at that book-and I think that every Congressman received a copy-the charge seems to be made that the Rockefeller interests, whatever that may mean, really controlled not only the elections and the candidates, but the Government and the administration. Those it favors are in office.

It just happened that the next morning after reading that book I saw that the incoming president had named one of those who was characterized as being one of the most able and influential of that group to a position in the Cabinet. Of course, I have no knowledge or information whatever as to how accurate the statements in that book may be, but it will illustrate the point that I am trying to make, which is that money can well influence, or be a terrific factor, not only in the selection of the candidates but in the legislation to be submitted to and adopted by the Congress.

I understand that under the present law there is no restriction whatever upon the contributions which educational or so-called educational organizations may make to candidates or political parties. I have in mind, of course, the PAC. As every Member of Congress well knows, the publications of that organization are political. They may

26585-52- -5

be educational also, but their primary purpose and I think the majority of the Congressmen would agree-is political rather than educational, except as education necessarily goes along with practically every purposeful statement.

In the same group might be classified foundations which are more indirect in their approach to campaigns but which over the years advocate their ideas and then after those ideas have been thoroughly planted in the minds of the people they come along with a candidate who fits the pattern which they have made.

Another group which is barred from making political financial contributions, of course, is the corporations. But some engage in political activities throughout the year and preceding an election. I have in mind the advertisements of the Latex Corp.-and there are others, many of them which defeat the purpose of the law. I just happened to think of that one because I recall some years ago the Latex Corp. had in the Washington papers, and in other great daily newspapers, full page advertisements advocating certain political views. I assume, although I do not know, that they charged the cost of those advertisements off on their income-tax returns.

Now, if you will give me, or perhaps some more intelligent individual, blanket authority to spend hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of dollars over a year preceding the election in so-called educational articles, I can do quite a job, at least in my own district and State, toward influencing the choice to be made on election day.

Mr. KEATING. You are successful in doing that now, without any money at all.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Oh, no. I would not say without any money. I do not believe there has been a primary campaign in which I have not spent far more than my financial worth would justify-and I am speaking about my district. If what I am going to say is conceited, I cannot help it, but I have probably spent more time talking to the voters in my district, Mr. Keating, meeting them personally, than perhaps some other Members of Congress who have not been as positive in their views as I. Do you get my point?

Mr. KEATING. I know that that is the gentleman's reputation.

Mr. HOFFMAN. I am frank to admit that I do not know now why people in my district vote for me. I am not greatly concerned with the reasons as long as they do.

It is my firm conviction that there should be some limit, not only as to money, but as to the time that should be spent by editorial writers and publications and as to their contributions of space for that space has a monetary value.

For example, Mr. Haswell, of the Detroit Free Press, is here. Now, Mr. John H. Knight, the publisher of the Free Press and some other papers, I noticed during the last campaign spent a great deal of space editorially in the Detroit Free Press after he was convinced that Mr. Eisenhower should be the man nominated and elected. Those editorials were in support of Mr. Eisenhower and in support of other candidates. I am citing that only as an example. Mr. Knight could not under the law give more than $5,000 to Ike. The Detroit Free Press, the corporation under which it operates, could not legally give a dollar. But through editorials worth many dollars Mr. Knight could and did do much for Ike. Why limit campaign contributions unless contributions worth thousands of dollars are limited?

The CHAIRMAN. Did he give you any space?

Mr. HOFFMAN. Well, his paper does not circulate very much in my district, and frankly, I would rather have the support of a comparatively unknown daily in the district than that of the Detroit Free Press when it comes to getting votes. And then for another reason, as I recall, Mr. Knight has been back and forth on one issue-the effectiveness and the desirability of the New Deal over the years. Sometimes he was here; sometimes he was there, and he was the editor. You will not recall, though I do, he is the editor who listed Congressmen generally as being incompetent. Also he said some other things about them that I will not mention. If the article is of any value, I can show it to you in the Congressional Record, because I wrote him and asked him why he did not become a Congressman and give the country at least one able, conscientious man. And perhaps inadvertently-certainly not with any intention of being discourteous-I suggested that possibly he was making more money the other way and he did not want to come down here to serve.

His father served very ably in Congress one term from Akron, Ohio. His son was a candidate for Congress in the primary from the Detroit district. Unfortunately, I regret very much that he was not nominated and elected, because Dad would have then had an opportunity to learn from his own family that perhaps sometimes Congressmen do try hard to do what they think is right.

But the point is this: If you are to limit the financial contributions which any individual or corporation can make, why should not there be some limitation on editorial space which any one editor or publisher can make in behalf of a candidate? Of course, as I said a moment ago, you run into the Constitutional guaranty of free speech and a free press, but I repeat that is not an unlimited right.

I do most respectfully and earnestly advance the thought that the editors should be limited in the amount of space, the cost of it, the dollar value of it, if others are to be limited. If you want to measure it by inches, all right; but there should be some limit, inasmuch as your right, my right, to purchase space is limited.

Mr. KARSTEN. The example that you cite of the Detroit paper might fit the libel laws.

Mr. HOFFMAN. How?

Mr. KARSTEN. You were complaining of the statements, not the quantity of the statements.

Mr. HOFFMAN. No; I was not complaining about what was in the articles. I was just calling attention to the fact that if you intend to limit financial contributions which might be used to purchase space there is no reason, in my mind, why you should not limit the contributions of space in a paper, or time over the radio, which in the end amounts to the same thing-political support or propaganda.

Mr. Chairman, if I have the money, I can buy the space, limited only by the money I have and by the statute; but if the editor or the publisher wants to give it to me, should he be permitted to do that on an unlimited basis?

Mr. KARSTEN. That is a question that we would like to have you answer. Where would you draw the line?

Mr. HOFFMAN. I would limit the space as fixed by its dollar value. If you can limit the amount, for example, which the Detroit Free Press can contribute to my campaign-if such a thing be conceded

if you can limit the dollars and cents, why cannot you limit the editorial space which the publisher can use in my behalf?

Mr. KARSTEN. How would you enforce anything like that?

Mr. HOFFMAN. The same way that you do your limit on financial contributions.

Mr. KARSTEN. You would have to have an army of detectives.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Oh, no. Remember that Mr. Truman suggested that he was not getting fair treatment from the press during the last campaign. And the editor or publisher could be required to report his political expenditures just as he now must report his cash contributions.

Mr. KARSTEN. That was a factual statement.

Mr. HOFFMAN. A factual statement by Mr. Truman?

Mr. KARSTEN. At the time that he made it, yes.

Mr. HOFFMAN. I thought that it was a matter of judgment or opinion. I know that he received far more publicity than I thought he should have had. Since he was going out of office, it did not make any difference. I made no complaint about it. A press survey showed that his statement was inaccurate.

Now, I spoke about the so-called educational institutions, the foundations and the organizations. I think that you are all familiar with that situation.

The CHAIRMAN. The foundations as such have not been participating in political campaigns. For instance, the Ford Foundation, have they been participating?

Mr. HOFFMAN. I do not know about the Ford Foundation. I have not paid too much attention to it, but I thought from the broadcast of Mr. Taylor, which I listen to and receive a great deal of benefit from, that it had a political trend. Now, how about the Anti Defamation League?

The CHAIRMAN. They are not a foundation, Mr. Hoffman.
Mr. HOFFMAN. Do they not get money from foundations?

The CHAIRMAN. Getting money from a foundation and being a foundation are two different things.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Perhaps I have the wrong idea, but I gathered from reading that Rockefeller book the other night that there were quite a few of those political organizations that were supported by foundations.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that the Rockefeller Foundation or was that the Rockefeller of 1898?

Mr. HOFFMAN. The whole Rockefeller outfit. The purpose of this book was to convince the readers that the Rockefellers control the United States Government and many other governments throughout the world. That was the purpose of the book, I think. I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. I did not mean to interrupt you.

Mr. HOFFMAN. Since I came here I may have absorbed quite a few ideas that probably are not sound, but it occurred to me that if this thing of expending millions in political campaigns continues to grow as it has, and if elections and the election of candidates are to be controlled by financial interests, which I gathered from the testimony of Mr. Summerfield might be possible, why should there not be some law requiring those individuals and organizations which intend to engage in political activities during a campaign to register just the same as

you require lobbyists to register? Are they not lobbyists for a candidate or a cause? If it is true-and I guess it is-that a candidate may have as many committees as he can obtain and that each one can spend whatever it desires, in addition to registering all those who intend to spend over a certain sum in political activities each one should file a statement as to how much that organization or individual proposes to spend. I realize the difficulty, but how are you to prevent corruptionthe purchasing of votes, of support-unless you go into the activities of those who conduct political campaigns and have some requirement as to what they shall spend? And then, of course, it is idle to write laws unless you have some enforcement.

I recall examining the records in the office of our clerk, some campaign statements, where a certain organization, which at times claimed to be educational, contributed a certain sum to a candidate. Then I turned over to that candidate's report, and there was no mention of that item. It is obvious that writing a law, as we all know, does not do the job. There must be enforcement; and the law must apply to all.

I think that is about all that I have to say. I would limit the financial amount. It is only fair that other ways of campaigning and the cost thereof should be limited.

Now, I file a statement, or my secretary does. We try to, and do, make it just as accurate as possible. Then I go and look in the county clerk's office in our State where the State law requires the filing of a statement, and I come down here and look in the clerk's office and I find that others have not filed statements naming amounts which I know they have received and which they have expended.

I want to thank you gentlemen for listening.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hoffman, I think the suggestion about registration is one that this committee can very well look into. We have had a lot of comments here about the difficulties that we face relative to the constitutional rights of our citizens, but there is no question about the fact hat Congress has the right to legislate in this field. We have already done it. We have many statutes. As a matter of fact, when this committee compiled a list of them, we found it was quite an undertaking. There are many laws on the subject. Congress has legislated over a period of years. So, the right of Congress to legislate is certainly well recognized, and it is recognized by the courts. The problem is

Mr. HOFFMAN. The financial contributions, if I may interrupt. The CHAIRMAN. Plus the fact that our laws are antiquated. The last, I believe, was passed before television came into being.

Do you feel definitely that there should be some limitation?

Mr. HOFFMAN. I certainly do. Answering the other question which apparently you raised, if you try to limit the editorial space used politically you will have the press on your neck right from the day that you introduce a bill of that kind. Nevertheless, as editorial space has a cash value and as the amount of space which I or my friends can purchase is limited, there seems to be no reason why a like limitation should not apply to an editor or publisher. I think it should be done because I cannot see the difference between a contribution of space and a contribution of money.

What difference, in effect is there, for example, between a $1,000 cash contribution to my political campaign by Mr. Knight, which I