fore, I reiterate my former suggestion that probably the best answer to the whole situation is to remove this rather silly limitation of $3,000,000 on expenditures for national campaigns, and redraft and rewrite the law affecting expenditures for senatorial and House candidates, so as to put them on a more realistic basis. In other words the law exempts certain expenditures, as you gentlemen well know, that a candidate for the House or Senate may make, so that actually his reports, as they are made, do not show the full expenditures.

I have had a considerable amount of experience as a political candidate. If I may be pardoned for a personal reference, I had no opposition for election this year, so, consequently, had practically no expenditures and very few contributions.

I supported the local or county committees within my district, as usual, making a small contribution to each county, which were, of course, properly reported.

However, in 1950 I was, I believe, the No. 1 man on the purge list of a number of the radical organizations of the country and from along early in March until November I was the subject of a constant attack over radio and television. My district was constantly filled with various left-wing publications condemning me, and a great many officials of various outside organizations came into my dis-. trict for speaking purposes. Somehow or other they always got around to discussing my political activities and voting record, and so forth and so forth. The best estimate we have been able to make of the expenditures that were made by the opposition to me in that political campaign is somewhere around $100,000, which is a lot of money to spend in one single congressional district.

I spent the limit allowed by law. I have read in the newspapers since the 1950 election that there were other activities in that political campaign, by other committees, such as Democrats for Brown, Independents for Brown, and my district congressional committee, and I understand reports were filed with the secretary of state as required by the law of the State by them, but it is a matter on which I had no personal information at that time, of course.

I would like to discuss for just a minute one other thought I have in mind. You were kind enough to refer in the beginning, Mr. Chairman, to my experience as secretary of state of Ohio. In Ohio, the secretary of state is also the supervisor of elections.

The CHARMAN. I wonder if you would mind reviewing your Ohio history?

Mr. BROWN. Yes, I will be happy to, Mr. Chairman. When I went into office as secretary of state in 1927 we had the so-called Australian ballot, and the straight-ticket ballot. We also had several rather currupt political machines. We had a great deal of difficulty with. primaries. In other words, if a candidate had organization support somehow or other in certain cities of Ohio, he just got practically all of the votes. If he did not have their indorsement, why, there were practically no votes counted for him, regardless of how many personal friends he had in a district. For example, there were cases where a candidate would have his mother and father living in a particular precinct or voting district in the city and yet he would receive no votes there whatever. I understand that same situation has occurred in other machine-controlled districts of the country as well as in Ohio.

Mr. KARSTEN. We had a similar situation in Missouri some years ago.

Mr. BROWN. Yes, I understand Missouri has had one or two of them. I remember one time visiting a warehouse located in one of the cities in Missouri from which there were more than 300 votes cast with no one housed there and not a single bed in the place.

up.

Mr. KARSTEN. I may say for the record that that has been cleared

Mr. BROWN. Yes, I think it has. I believe you have done a very good job there. I recall in one of the large Ohio cities, to wit, Cleveland, when I was secretary of state, that we had a great many complaints about what had gone on in the primary election in that city. The Republican national committeman was the so-called political boss in Cleveland. We went into that city and, before we had finished, we had to practically police the city. One thing led to another in the investigation and as a result a great deal of fraud and corruption was exposed in various public offices. Some 600 election officials were brought in and either indicted or removed for different things which had happened in their precincts.

One of the great ways to change votes was the short-pencil method of which you gentlemen have all heard, I know. In such cases where there is a straight ballot cast they would take the ballot and with a piece of pencil set in a ring, would mark it the way they wanted to mark it.

Another way of controlling election results was the old chainreaction method. Atomic energy scientists were not the first discoverers of the chain reaction. That method was to get one or two extra ballots, have a convenient location at the polls and then have the individual voter take the ballot you marked in his pocket, or in her pocket, as there were a great many she's involved, incidentally, as well as men, into the voting booth.

He then would take the blank ballot and put it in his pocket and vote the marked ballot, bringing the blank ballot back to the "fixer," and the payoff would then occur.

It was found in some wards, or in some precincts, for example, that the Democrat election officials would go in one corner and count their own primary ballots and decide who their nominee would be, and the other party officials would do the same thing. As a result, of course, the election reports were made very early. However, the election reports in Ohio have been slowed down somewhat since they started counting the ballots. But we found many situations such as that, for it was very difficult to get recounts.

I remember the attorney general of Ohio at that time, was my righthand man in attempting to clear up the situation. The chief justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio had been a candidate for nomination for the United States Senate against a man who was a very fine Senator. I am sure the Senator had nothing to do with the situation, but at the time the chief justice was a candidate against the Senator from that

area.

An attempt was made to stop our investigation of the election by going to the supreme court and asking for a writ of prohibition. Our recount of ballots which had been cast from one precinct showed that the chief justice had received some 181 votes, and the Senator had received something like 81. When the results were brought in, how

ever, the corrupt report showed that the chief justice had received 18 votes, and the Senator had received something like 280 votes. So when the chief justice and the supreme court looked into the situation, they became quite interested in it, and, the writ of prohibition was denied. I am sure the decision was on legal basis, however.

The final outgrowth of that whole investigation exposed what had been going on too often in Ohio elections. The investigation showed that certain individual candidates for State offices, had been nominated on the basis of results that had been reported, were actually not the nominees, and yet there was no means by which the results could be changed at that time to give the nominations to the men who had actually been nominated on the ballot.

Mr. KARSTEN. They had been certified?
Mr. BROWN. They had been, yes.

As a result of such situations in Cleveland, Youngstown, and some other cities, the Ohio election code was rewritten. And, I think for the first time in the history of the country, a State law provided a sort of shotgun-behind-the-door arrangement, so that any candidate could have a recount of the vote by simply filing an application for the recount with the board of election, naming the precincts he wanted recounted, and putting up a deposit of $10 for each precinct to be checked.

At that time, the law provided that if the result of the election was changed and will you follow me, Mr. McCulloch, please--or if the result of the recount showed there was any change by as much as 2 percent-in any precinct--and it is now 4 percent in Ohio-the applicant received back all the money deposited for that precinct, and if the result of the election was changed, all the money he had deposited would be refunded.

The law also provided that if the recount cost less than $10 per precinct, the charge should be reduced to the actual cost, or to not less than $5 for each precinct where there was no change made.

That has resulted in sort of putting the fear of God into those mak. ing the ballot count and has made them rather careful about their work.

I remember at one time we recounted an entire State because there had been a very close election. We found very few evidences of any attempt on the part of any local group not to make a careful count. Once in awhile we found an error of 10 or 100 in the tabulated vote; or perhaps as many as a thousand at the county level, where they had actually made an error in the tabulation. But the results were not changed.

I recall an instance where one of my colleagues had a recount of the entire congressional district where the vote had been very close. And you gentlemen may have knowledge of other instances.

In a recent instance, the difference between the two congressional candidates was 329 votes. The loser asked for a recount in some 88 precincts of the district, where he suspected that perhaps something had been done that was not proper.

As a result of that recount, in which his representative and the representative of the other candiate were present and watched the count, which was made by the board of elections, the actual change was only 10 votes in favor of the applicant. In other words, the final count showed 319 majority for the incumbent instead of 329,

and immediately the applicant announced that he was satisfied the count was fair, that the other gentleman had defeated him, and he accepted the verdict of the announced vote.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that your committee does not have any authority to tell the various States what they should do, but perhaps a recommendation by a congressional committee might be accepted. Personally I would like to see some sort of a recount provision, such as we have in Ohio, in every State law.

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Brown, in Ohio, the State officials recount the ballots for congressional and senatorial candidates, do they?

Mr. BROWN. Yes. In Ohio, congressional candidates can require it, as I think was evidenced in this last election. They can request a recount in each district if they wish.

And by the way, the Ohio County Election Board is absolutely and actually a bipartisan board, two from each party. In some States they have a predominant number from one party. But in my opinion I think the division should be absolutely on a bipartisan basis where a recount is demanded, the county board of electors conducts the recount. In a recount where fraud is charged, the State secretary himself often looks into it

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, may I add something to what Mr. Brown has said.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. McCULLOCH. I think I may add further that the county members of the board of elections are actually State officials.

Mr. BROWN. Yes; they are actually deputy supervisors.

Mr. KEATING. I may add that in this committee we have been confronted with the situation where the State officials took the position that it was only a matter for the Federal Government. I assume that is because they were looking at it from the standpoint of the Federal Government.

Mr. BROWN. I just cannot agree with that. I certainly would disagree with any State official, wherever or whomsoever he may be, who said that the State did not have any authority or any responsibility in connection with honest elections.

Mr. KEATING. And I want to agree with you.

Mr. BROWN. Because the Constitution does give to the States the right and the power over elections, and most States would be very jealous if the Congress tried to take the States' rights from them.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we had a specific case of that kind arising in the State of California.

Mr. BROWN. I do not know whether the statement would apply to California.

The CHAIRMAN. There the Supreme Court specifically declared that the only authority for recount in a congressional primary lay in the Congress of the United States.

Mr. BROWN. That may be in the case of a recount, but if I recall correctly what I have read, the secretary of state or the supervisor in California certainly has some responsible place in supervising all elections to see they are conducted honestly.

Mr. KEATING. In this case there was an application to the Court, and the Court said that the real jurisdiction rested with the congressional committee.

Mr. McCULLOCH. I would like to make this statement to the committee in this connection: While I do not have any desire to tell California what to do, I certainly think the people of California would be happier to have State legislation providing for a recount of all ballots cast from the Presidential level down to the local elected officials, rather than to have the National Government provide for such a recount. I know that Ohio, by proper legislation, disposes of that problem.

Mr. BROWN. I think the average American citizen enjoys, to a certain extent, a political campaign and takes a great deal of interest in it. But, at the same time, the great majority of American citizens want their votes counted honestly after they put them in the box. They are willing to "play politics" during the campaign, but once they go into the voting booths and cast their ballots, after they have made up their minds as to whom they are going to vote for, they want those ballots counted honestly, and if the time ever comes when the ballots are not counted properly, we will lose our democratic or republican form of government, or whatever you may want to call it. And may I go back again, just for an illustration, to Ohio? As a result of the exposures in some of the cities where there was not sufficient election surveillance, there has been a change-over of party control and public officials, and while there may have been some cases where now and then errors have been found, the actual result has been complete change for the better in the conduct of elections.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe that all over the country a great deal of progress has been made during the last several years in conducting elections. I think that is not only true in Ohio, but it is true in my State. But the problem not only in Ohio, but perhaps in all the States, is with this question of expenditures.

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee would be glad to have your opinion, because of your experience in Ohio, on what you think should be the amount expended in these elections. How much, for instance, can the Governor expend in the conduct of the campaign?

Mr. BROWN. Personally $5,000. There is no limit on what the committee can spend.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have in Ohio a corrupt practices act?

Mr. BROWN. We have a corrupt practices act, yes. No corporation can contribute to a campaign, either directly or indirectly, and the campaign committees, in Ohio, must file a list of all contributions and at the same time, they file a list of expenditures accompanied by a receipt for all expenditures of $10 or more.

That law is rather strictly enforced against both committees and individual candidates.

However, in my opinion the Ohio law is not realistic as far as the individual is concerned. Take the $5,000 in the case of the campaign for governor. That means practically nothing in a State like Ohio where there are nearly 4 million votes cast, as was done in the last election. Take the cost of postage alone; if you just sent one letter to each voter, that one letter would cost far more than the limit.

As a result, of course, practically all of the political operations within the State of Ohio are conducted for the State candidates through committees.