, j ©?//

I \

DEPRIVATION OF EMPLOYMENT ON >

ACCOUNT OF POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION

GOVERNMENT

I

Storage

CIJMHMTS

F E B ? , 5 ' 9 7 6

KANb-" t ^,'ru^Xs.THEARING

BEFO RE TH E

SUB COM MITTEE ON CR IM INAL JU ST ICE

OF T H E

COMMITTEE ON TH E JUDICIA RY

HOUSE OF REPR ESENTATIVES

NINE TY -FO UR TH CONGRESS

FIRS T SESSION

ON

LEGISLATION RELATIN G TO DEPRIVA TION OF EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER BE NE FIT MADE POS SIB LE BY ACT OF 

CONGRESS ON ACCOUNT OF POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION, 

RACE, COLOR, SEX, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN

OCTOBER 21, 1975

SERIAL NO. 24

Printe d fo r the use of th e Committee on the Ju dic iary

62-663

U.S . GO VE RN MEN T PR IN TI NG OFF IC E 

WAS HING TO N : 1976
» V 

i

.S

COMMITTEE ON TH E JUDIC IAR Y

P E T E R W. RO DI NO, JR., Ne w Je rs ey , Chai rm an

J A C K BRO O K S, T exas

R O B E R T W. K A ST E N M E IE R , Wisc on sin 

DON E D W A R D S, Cal ifor nia 

W IL LIA M L. H U N G ATE, Misso uri 

JO HN CO N YE R S, J r., Mich iga n 

JO SH U A E IL B E R G , Pe nnsy lv an ia 

W A L T E R F LO W E R S, Alab am a 

JA M E S R. M AN N, So ut h Ca ro lin a 

P A U L S. S A R B A N E S. Maryla nd 

JO HN F. S E IB E R L IN G . Ohio 

G EO R G E E. D A N IE LSO N , Cal ifor nia 

R O B E R T F. D R IN AN , M as sa ch us etts 

B A R B A R A JO RD AN , Te xa s 

R A Y TH ORNTO N, A rk an sa s 

E L IZ A B E T H H OLT ZM AN, New Yo rk 

ED W AR D M E Z V IN SK Y . Iowa 

HERM AN B A D IL LO , New Yo rk 

RO MAN O L. M AZZ OLI , Ken tu ck y 

ED W A R D W . P A T TIS O N , New Yo rk 

C H R IS T O P H E R J. DO DD , Co nn ec tic ut 

W IL LIA M J. H U G H ES, New Je rsey 

M ARTI N A. RU SS O , Illin oi s

E ar l C. Du d le y, Jr ., G en er al C o u nse l

Gar ne r J. C l in e, S ta ff D ir ect or

H er be rt F u c h s , Counse l

Wil lia m P. S h a t t u c k , C o u nse l

A la n A. P a r k e r , C o u nse l

J am es F. F a lco, C ounse l

Mau ri ce A. H ar bo za , Counse l

T h o m as W. H u t c h is o n , C o u nse l

Arth ur P. E n d r e s, J r., C ounse l

Da n ie l L . C o h e n , "C ou ns el

F r an k lin G. P o l k, C ounse l

T h o m as E. Mo o n ey, C ounse l

A le xan der B. C o o k, C ounse l

Co n sta n t in e J. G e k a s , C o u nse l

A lan F. Co f f e y , Jr ., C o u nse l

K en n et h N. K le e, C ounse l

Ray m ond V . S m ie t a n k a, C o u nse l

ED W A R D H UTCH IN SO N , M ichi ga n 

R O B E R T M cC LO RY, Illin oi s 

TO M R A IL SB A C K , Illinoi s 

CH A R LE S E. W IG GIN S, Califo rn ia 

H AM IL TO N FIS H , JR „ Ne w Yo rk 

M. C A LD W E L L B U T LE R , V ir gin ia 

W IL LIA M S. CO HEN , Main e 

CA R LO S J. MOO RH EA D, Califo rn ia 

JO HN M. A SH BRO O K, Ohio 

H EN R Y J. H YDE, Il lin oi s 

TH OM AS N. KIN D N ESS, Ohio

Subcom m it te e on Cr im in a l J u st ic e

W IL LIA M L. H U N G A TE , Miss ou ri, Chair m an

JA M ES R. M AN N, So ut h Car ol in a C H A R LE S E. W IG G IN S, Cali fo rn ia

R A Y TH ORNTO N, A rk an sa s H E N R Y J. H YD E , Illinoi s

E L IZ A B E T H H OLT ZM AN, Ne w Yor k

M ARTI N A. RU SS O , Illinoi s

T h o m as W. H u t c h is o n , C o u n sel

T oni L a w so n, A s s is ta n t C ounse l

Ray mond V. S m ie t a n k a, Ass oc ia te Co un sel

( u )
C O N T E N T S

Text of—

H.R. 2920__________________________________________________ 2

H.R. 10336____________________________________________________ 4

H.R. 10521_________________________________________________ 6

Witnesses—

Allen, Frank, Deputy Chief, Civil Rig hts Division, Department of

Justice____________________________________________________ 35

Donsanto, Craig, att orn ey, Fra ud Section, Criminal Division, Dep artment of Justice____________________________________________ 35

Eble, Charles F., execu tive director, Ind ian a S tate Employees Associatio n______________________________________________________ 54

Prep ared s tatemen t_______________________________________ 53

Marshall, James F., national executive director, Assembly of Governm ental Employees_______________________________________ 48

Prepared statem en t_______________________________________ 46

Milligan, Thomas S., chairman, Ind iana Republican Sta te Committee____________________________________________________ 76

Prepared statem en t_______________________________________ 74

Pauley, Roger, deputy chief, Legislation and Special Projects Section,

Criminal Division, De partm ent of Justice_____________________ 35

Prepared statem en t______________________________________ 33

Roush, Hon. J. Edw ard, a Representative in Congress from the S tate

of Ind ian a_________________________________________________ 8

Prepared statem en t______________________________________ 8

Additional material—

“ Demos To End Two Per Cent Club If Tax Credits Are OK’d,”

by Edward Ziegner, political edito r___________________________ 70

“ End Archaic Thinking,” editorial, Huntin gton North High School__ 29

“ Former Highway Employees Decry Patronage System,” HeraldArgus, August 14, 1974_____________________________________ 68

Gates, Rob ert E., Whitley County Republican Chairman, letter 

dated Jan uary 24, 1972, to those working for the Sta te highway

from Whitley co un ty________________________________________ 30,72

“ GOP Fund Drive Under Way ,” Indianapolis Sta r, Jan uary 16,

1975________________________________________________________ 69

“ GOP’s Approve Patronage,” Herald-Telephone, October 8, 1975__ 72

“Ind ian a GOP Head Says He’d Fire Pledge Balk ers,” by Gordon

Engle hart_________________________________________________ 31, 67

“Jobs Open,” Repu blica n News, June-Ju ly 1973_________________ 69

Jon tz, Jim, Sta te representativ e, Ind iana House of Representatives,

lette r dated October 8, 1975, to Hon. J. Edw ard Ro ush_________ 28

Kittredge, Roy E., superin tenden t, Offices of State Highway Commission, Sta te of Indiana, letter dated Feb rua ry 22, 1974________ 30,73

Meadors, Murril, chairman, Washington County Republican Central

Committee, letter d ate d July 5, 1974_________________________ 31,73

Mendenhall, Ray, Ind iana Sta te Highway Commission, interd epa rtment memo dated Jul y 6, 1971, to all e mployees_______________ 30,73

Milligan, Thomas S., Sta te Chairman, Indiana Republican State 

Central Committee, lette r d ated December 14, 1973, to Departm ent

Heads and Patronage Solicitors______________________________ 27

“ Patronage System Affects Local Emp loymen t Hopes,” by Gary

Schenkel__________________________________________________ 29

Petersen, Henry E., Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, 

Dep artm ent of Justice, let ter dated May 2, 1974, to Thomas S.

Milligan__________________________________________________ 86

“The Two Per Cent Club: Political Give and Take,” Courier-Journal

& Times, August 5, 1973____________________________________ 63

Uhlmann, Michael M., Department of Justice, letter dated September, 24, 1975, to Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr. chairma n House 

Committe e on the Judiciary_________________________________ 36

UH)
IV

Appendix— Cohen, David, president, Common Cause, le tter dated November 20, 

1975, to Hon. William L. Hungate----------------------------------------

Roush, Hon. J. Edward, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana, letter dated November 24, 1975, to Hon. William L.

Hungate_______________________________________________

Thornburgh, Richard L., Assistant Attorney General, Departm ent of

Justice, letter dated October 29, 1975, to Hon. William L. Hungate _

92

92

91

I
DEPRIVAT ION OF EMPLOYM ENT ON ACCO UNT 

OF POLITICA L CON TRI BUTIO N

TUE SDA Y, OCTOBER 21, 1975

H ouse of R ep re se nta ti ves ,

* S ubco m m it te e on C r im in a l J us ti ce

of t ii e C om m it te e on t h e J ud ic ia ry ,

W a sh in g to n, D.C .

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m., in room

• 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable William L. 

Hungate [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Hungate, Holtzman, Russo, Wiggins, and 

Hyde.

Also prese nt: Thomas W. Hutchison, counsel; and Raymond Smietanka, associate counsel.

Mr. Hungate. The subcommittee will be in order. The Subcommittee on Criminal Justice will hear testimony today on H R. 2920, a 

bill to amend sections 600 and 601 of title 18, United States Code, 

relating to the grantin g or deprivation of benefits provided for or 

made possible by any act of Congress, on the basis of political activity, 

and for other purposes. H.R. 2920 is sponsored by our distinguished 

colleague from Indiana, Ed Roush, and he will be our opening witness..

[Copies of H.R. 2920, H.R. 10336, and H.R. 10521 follow:]

(1)
2

94th CONGRESS 

1st Session H. R. 2920

IN TH E HO USE OF RE PR ES EN TA TIVE S 

F ebruary 5,1975

Mr. Roush introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend section 600 and section 601 of title 18, I nited States 

Code, relating to the granting or deprivation of benefits 

provided for or made possible by any Act of Congress, on 

the basis of political activity, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 600 and section 601 of title 18, United States 

■4 Code are amended as follows,

5 Section 1. Section 601 of title 18, United States Code,

6 is hereby amended:

7 (a) by striking therefrom the words “appropriating

8 funds for work relief or relief purposes” which follow

9 the phrase “made possible by any Act of Congress” ;

10 and by inserting a comma after the word “Congress” ;

I
3

2

1 (b) by inserting the words “in whole or in pa rt”

2 following the phrase “made possible”.

3 Sec. 2. Sections 600 and 601 of title 18, United States

4 Code, respectively, are amended by striking out “$1,000”

5 and by inserting in lieu thereof “$25,000” .

I
4

94th CONGRESS 

1st Session H. R. 10336

IN TH E HO USE OF RE PR ES EN TA TIVE S 

O ctober 22,1 975

Mr. Roush (for himself, Mr. Evans of Indiana, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Hates of 

Indiana, and Mr. J acobs) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

f

A BI LL

To amend section 600 and section 601 of title 18, United States 

Code, relating to the granting or deprivation of benefits 

provided for or made possible by any Act of Congress, on 

the basis of political activity, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United Sta tes of Am erica in Congress assembled,

3 That section 600 and section 601 of title 18, United States

4 Code are amended as follows,

ft Sectio n 1. Section 601 of title 18, United States Code,

6 is hereby amended:

7 (a) by striking therefrom the words “appropriating

8 funds for work relief or relief purposes” which follow

9 the phrase “made possible by any Act of Congress”.;

10 and by inserting a comma after the word “Congress”

I
5

2

1 (b) by inserting the words “in whole or in pa rt”

2 following the phrase “made possible” .

3 Sec. 2. Sections 600 and 601 of title 18, United States

4 Cod6, respectively, are amended by striking out “$1,0 00”

5 and by inserting in lieu thereof “$25,000” .

7

2

1 the phrase “'made possible by any Act of Congress” ;

2 and by inserting a comma after the word “Congress” ;

3 (b) by inserting the words “hi whole or in part”

4 following the phrase “made possible”.

5 Sec. 2. Sections 600 and 601 of title 18, United States

6 Code, respectively, are amended by striking out “$1,000”

7 and by inserting in lieu thereof “$25,000”.
8

Mr. H ungate. In addition to R epresentative Roush, we will receive 

testimony from representatives of various organizations and groups. 

These a re : The U.S. Depart ment of Justice, represented by Mr. Roger 

Pauley, Depu ty Chief of the Legislation and Special P rojec ts Section 

of the Criminal Division; the Assembly of Governmental Employees, 

represented by its National Executive Director, Mr. Jame s F. 

Marshall; the Indi ana State Employees Association, represented by 

its executive director, Air. Charles Eble; and the Indiana State Republican Committee, represented by its chairman, Mr. Thomas S. 

Milligan.

I am pleased at this time to welcome to our hearing the distinguish ed 

Representative from the Fo urth District of Indiana , J. Edwa rd Roush.

TESTIMO NY OF HON. J. EDW ARD ROUSH, A U.S. RE PR ES EN TA TIVE

FROM TH E FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DIS TRICT OF TH E STATE

OF IN DIA NA; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. PH YL LIS O’CALLAGHAN,

LE GISL AT IVE ASSISTANT TO CONGRESSMAN ROUSH

Mr. Hungate. Please proceed. You have a prepa red statement. 

Wit hout objection, it will be made par t of the record at this point, 

and you may go forward as you see fit.

[Th e prep ared statement of the Honorable J. Edw ard Roush 

follow s:]

Statement of th e Honorable J. Edward R oush

Mr. Cha irman : It is a pleasure to appea r before you today to tes tify in supp ort 

of my bill. H.R. 2920, a bill to amend sections 600 and 601 of Tit le 18, United 

Sta tes Code, rel ati ng to the gra nting or deprivation of benefits provid ed for or 

made possible by any Act of Congress, on the basis of polit ical acti vity .

These sections of the law date back to 1939 and are pa rt of the orig inal Hat ch 

Act. They re ad as follow s:

SECTIO N 600 PR OM ISE OF EMP LOYMENT OR OTHER BE NE FIT FOR POL ITICAL ACTIVITY

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, work, compensation s, or oth er benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in pa rt 

by any Act of Congress, to any person as consid eratio n, favo r, or rew ard for 

any political act ivi ty or for the sup port of or opposition to any can did ate or 

any politica l pa rty in any election, shall be fined not more tha n $1,00 0 or impriso ned not more th an one year, or both.

Section 600 of Title 18. USC was amen ded by PL 92-225, the Feder al Election 

Campaign Act of 1971 (Sec. 202 ) to add prima ries and a few other term s, hut 

the essenti al meaning remains unchanged. (Th e additions are ital iciz ed.) 

SECTION 600 PR OM ISE OF EMLOY MENT OR OTHER BE NE FIT FOR POL ITIC AL ACTIVIT Y

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, positio n, compensation, contrac t, appointmen t, or oth er benefit, provided for or made possible 

in whole or in pa rt by any Act of Congress, or any special conside ration in obtain ing an y such benefit, to any person as cons idera tion, favor, or rew ard for any 

political activ ity or for the sup port of or opposition to any can did ate or any 

polit ical party in connection wit h any gen eral or special election to any political

office, o r in connection wit h any pri ma ry election or political convention or caucus held to select candida tes fo r any political office, shall be fined not more tha n 

$1,00 0 or imprisoned not more tha n one yea r, or both.

SEC TIO N 60 1 DEPRIVATIO N OF EM PLOYME NT OR O THE R BE NE FIT FOR POLITICA L ACTIVIT Y

Whoever, excep t as required by law, directly or indir ectly , deprives, atte mp ts 

to deprive, or threa ten s to deprive any p erso n of any employment, position, work, 

compensation, or other benefit provided for or made possible by any Act of Congress app rop riating fund s for work relie f purpose s, on accou nt of race, creed,
fcolor, or any political activity, support of, or opposition to any candidate or 

any political party in any election, shall be lined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Specifically, H.R. 2920 will amend Section 601 of Title 18 USC to make it clear that an individual cannot be deprived of or excluded from employment or benefits provided for or made possible in whole or in par t by any Act of 

Congress, on the basis of political activity. Under the present wording of Section 601, protection against deprivation of 

employment due to political activity is restricted to work projects funded by Congress. My intent in the bill is to extend the protection of Section 601 to ANY program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance by eliminating the reference to work relief and by adding “in whole or in pa rt” after the phrase 

“made possible.” Secondly, Sections 600 and 601 are complementary, the first dealing with promises of employment and the latter with deprivation of employment due to political activity or affiliation. In both I would increase the fine that is presently imposed for violations of eith er of these two sections of the code from the present minimal and meaningless amount of $1,000 to $25,000. In the campaign reform legislation we have been passing of late the $25,000 figure is common and 

represents a more accurate and fitting punishment for violation of these acts 

today. I am pleased to note tha t the Justice Department concurs in the need for this legislation. Their letter to you indicates tha t since Section 601 dealing with the 

denial of benefits on the basis of political activity is confined to federal “relief” projects (indicating the origin of this act) , they do not feel they could apply either of these two sections to situations where non-welfare benefits are involved and therefore prosecution of these sections is difficult, if not impossible, on th is score. The changes I propose, namely the increase in the fine: the deletion of certain restricting words; and the addition of language extending the scope of Section 601, would make prosecution of violations of these sections of the law prohibiting political discrimination in the form of promises of or denial of 

employment based on political activity or the lack thereof possible. I would like to document for you the reasons why I introduced this legislation, particularly from the abuses of political patronage tha t exist in Indiana. It is my hope tha t the Justice Department, which has pursued violators of these 

sections of the law to the extent that has been possible, will provide examples 

from other states. Although my testimony will appear to have a partisan ring from here on out, 

I want to assure my Republican colleagues on the Subcommittee that Democratic Administrations have not been blameless and that, as I will point out later, it was a Democratic Governor who probably started our infamous “Two Percent Club.” The State of Indiana has had, and has, the reputation of having one of the 

most political state employee hiring policies in the nation.

This has been the practice under administrations of both political parties. When a new governor takes over, virtually every state employee, except those who fall under the merit system, is subject to change. A prime example is the State Highway Commission. Not only is a new chairman of the Commission appointed, but also every d istr ict engineer may be replaced, usually on the basis of political loyalty rather than ability. This has on occasion deprived the State of qualified dedicated public servants, because they were of the “wrong” political 

persuasion.

Indiana is thus well known for its Two Percent Club. I believe that this prac­ tice of extracting a portion of an employee’s wages as tribute cannot be allowed to continue as a pre-condition to employment or to continuance in employment. Political parties should be allowed to support themselves through voluntary contributions, and government employees should have that freedom of expression available to them just as any other citizen. Rut they should not be deprived of employment or a portion of their compensation after employment. There is no place in the Courthouse or the Statehouse for the bag man. States must have the 

very best qualified people they can attrac t to public service; the people deserve no less. Political loyalty should not be the criterion in hiring public employees 

nor should lack of political loyalty be the criterion for firing them.

I have long been offended by th is practice in Indiana and have stood back and restrained myself for too long. My determination to try to do something was 

strengthened when I learned tha t lifeguards, young men and women, at the 

Indiana reservoirs were required to be of a certain political affiliation in order
to get the job and were required to contribute 2% of their wages to the party in 

power in order to keep their jobs. I found this distr essing and ridiculous.

The reservoir issue brought to mind this legislation. Some of these reservoirs 

are in my present Congressional district and in the Congressional district I rep­ resented before redistricting in Indiana in 1968. Listed below are the reservoir projects in Indiana with both the federal and non-federal financial contribution to them through FY 1974. At the time these young lifeguards were having their problems I was struck with the fact tha t these reservoirs used a great deal of the taxpayers’ dollars and that political employment discrimination should not be possible where federal funds are involved at all. (The figures for the reservoir 

projects in the State of Indiana follow.)

RESERVOIR PROJECTS IN STATE OF IN D IA N A 

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL 

[A mou nts in dollars)

Ne w w ork exp en ditu re s

Project To tal pro je ct Federal Non-F ed era l

Bro ok ville L ake_______________________________________________

Cagles M ill La ke ______________________________________________

Hu ntington La ke _______ ______________________________________

Ce cil M. Harle n La ke......... .................- ...............- ..........- .........................

Mississinewa La ke____________________________________________

Monroe Lake................ - ................................ ..................................................

Salam onie Lake_______________________________________________

$58, 354, 000 

4, 256, 000 

20, 428, 000 

7, 2 72 ,000 

24 ,6 41 ,0 00 

17, 078, 0G0 

17,14 7, 000

$50,158, 000 

4, 256, 000 

19 ,714 ,000

6, 7 22,100 

23, 822, 000

7, 939, 000

16, 610, 000

i $ 8,1 96, 000

‘ ■ 'Y n i'o o o 

» 550, 000 

< 81 9,0 00 

« 9 ,1 3 9,0 00 

« 537 ,000

» Sta te w ill pay i n it ia l costs allocated to w at er su pp ly.

’ 1 percent ($193,000) contrib ution fo r lo w -flo w au gm entation. Recre ation costs ($5 21,00 0) based on a 50 to 50 co stsh aring-ba sis .

3

 Recreatio n costs based on a 50 to 50 co stsh aring basis.

« 1 pe rcent ($238 ,200) contrib ution fo r lo w-flo w augm entation. Recre ation costs ($580,8 00) based on a 50 to 50 costsh aring basis. « State agreed to pay 54.1 pe rc en t of in itia l pr oject cost fo r wat er supp ly ($8 ,01 5,0 00). Re cre ation costs ($ 1,12 4,00 0) 

based on a 50 t o 5C co stsh aring basis. «1 pe rcent ($1 63,80 0) contrib ution fo r lo w-flo w au gm en tatio n. Recreatio n cos ts ($373,200) based on a 50 to 50 co stsharing basis.

OPERATION AND MA INTE NA NC E, GENERAL 

[A m ou nts in dollars]

Fiscal ye ar Fe deral ex pe nd itu re s (fisc al ye ar s)

put i n ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

op er ation 1973 1974 Thro ug h 1974

Bro ok ville L a k e 1

.............................................................................

Cagles M ill La ke .................... .......... - .....................................

Hu ntington Lane..............................................................................

Ce cil M. Harden La ke ....................................................................

Mississinewa Lak e------- ---------- -------- ----------------------------------

Mo nro e La ke.......................- ---------- --------------------------------------

Salam onie Lake_______________________________________

1974 . . $57,000 $57, OCO

1953 $157, 000 266, 000 1, 553, 000

1969 163, 000 190, 000 747, GOO

1961 147, 000 152,000 1,2 43,0 00

1968 155 , 0C0 18 3, 00 0 93 1, 00 0

1965 18 1,50 0 171,000 1, 152, 000

1967 17 6,000 177,0 00 1,11 8, 000

* Bro ok ville Lake pro je ct is s ti ll under co ns truct io n. T he Federal cost is th e curr ent es tim ate.

My effort to do something at the Federal level was also stimulated by other 

events. In July, 1973, the General Accounting Office announced tha t they were “referring to the Attorney General of the United States the question of whether a patronage collection system in the State of Indiana, which provides financial 

support to political parties, violates Federal Law.” At the same time the Comptroller General of the GAO called the ma tter to 

the attention of the Congress, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Chairman 

of the Civil Service Commission. GAO’s Office of Federal Elections had made an audit and a field investigation 

of the Indiana Republican State Central Committee covering the period from April 7 to December 31, 1972. Particularly GAO was concerned with possible violations of Section 600 of Title 18 U.S.C. prohibiting “promises of employment made possible, in whole or in part, by any Act of Congress, as a consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity, or for support of a political party.”
At that time GAO found approximately 7,400 of Indiana’s 12,000 State 

•employees were patronage employees. I would like at this time to quote extensively from the pertinent parts of tha t GAO release. The patronage system has been used for many years by both Republican and Democratic Indiana State administrations; the present administration is Republican. Under the system, patronage employees contribute two percent (2%) of their annual earnings to the political party providing their state jobs. Patronage contributions in 1972 totaled .$375,090 or 40 percent of the total contributions to the State Central Committee of the Republican Party of Indiana. The GAO aud it of payroll records of a sample of 04 employees of the Indiana State Highway Commission showed that 10 of these employees were compensated from Federal funds provided by the Federal Highway Administration. The report itself contained the following findings.

Report of th e Office of F ederal Elections on the I ndiana

Republican State Central Committee

I. BACKGROUND

This report covers an audit and field investigation undertaken by the Office of Federal Elections and the Cincinnati Regional Office of the United States General Accounting Office, under the authority of section 308(a) (11) of the 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The Indiana Republican State Central Committee (Central Committee) is governed by the rules and regulations of the Republican Party of the State of Indiana. The Central Committee is the permanent body for the coordination of all Republican activities in the State. The officers of the Central Committee during the period of our audit were: James T. Neal. Cha irman: Betty Rendel, Vice (Chairman; Edwin J. Simcox, Secretary; and John Burkhart, Treasurer. 

Its headquarters are located in Indianapolis. The audit covered the period from April 7. 1972, the date the Act came into effect, through December 31. 1972, the closing date for the Committee’s Jan uary 31 report. During this period the Central Committee reported receipts of $1,714,202 

and expenditures of $1,704,605.

II. FIND INGS AND CONCLUSIONS

A. Promise of Employment or Other Benefit for Political Activity or Support

Section 600 of title 18 of the United States Code (as amended by section 202 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971) prohibits the direct or indirect promise of employment or compensation, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, to any person as a consideration or reward for tha t person’s support of any political party in connection with any primary or 

general election to any political office. A patronage system has been in effect for many years in the State of Indiana. At present, approximately 60 percent of the State government’s employees, or 7.400 persons, are patronage employees. Under this system patronage employ­ ment is primarily dependent upon political party affiliation. It has been used by both Democratic and Republican administrations and changes in party ad­ ministration have resulted in near complete and abrupt turnover in patronage 

positions. Patronage collections are an important source of financing for political parties. The present Governor is a Republican, and we estimate that, during 1972, patronage contributions to the Republican State Central Committee aggregated approximately $375,000, or 46 percent of the total contributions received by the Central Committee. The Democratic Party also received patronage contribu­ tions through offices under the control of that party. Patronage employees are expected to contribute to the political party at the rate of two percent of their State earnings. Prior to employment, an individual applying for a patronage position must complete a Patronage Clearance Form which, among other data, requires the endorsements of 10 party functionaries ranging from Precinct Vice-Committeeman to the State Chairman. This form also contains the following two questions: (1) “What is your political party affilia­ tion?” and (2) “Would you be willing to contribute regularly to the Indiana 

Republican State Central Committee?” Under existing Federal law the administrative expenses of a number of pro­ grams administered by S tates are paid in part from Federal funds. Among these is the Highway program. To establish the relationship between the patronage
12

payments and Fed eral funds, we examined the payroll records for a sample of 

64 Sta te patronage employees of the Ind iana Sta te Highway Commission (Commission) who were re gularly con tributin g money to the Cen tral Committee.

We identified the names and salaries of ten of these 64 employees on vouchers 

submitted by the Commission to the Federal Highway Adm inistration a s support 

for Fede ral Highway A dministration payments to the Commission of a percentage 

of the S tat e’s cost of highway projects. Based on th e vouchers, the Federal Highway A dministration made payments to the Commission from the Highway Trust 

Fund pu rsu ant to specific project agreements authorized under Public Law 

85-767.

Und er the patronage collection procedures employed by the State Highw ay 

Commission, a patronage personnel section in the Commission is directly responsible for interviewing and hiring for patronag e positions. This section also maintai ns comprehensive records of annual employee pledges as well a s records of collections based on those pledges. The Director of Patronage Personnel in the State 

Hig hwa y Commission stated t hat she has the autho rity to suspend pay increases 

in cases where employees make inadequate donations. However, she stated th at 

it had been unnecessary to exercise this autho rity because each employee accepting Sta te employment in a patron age position knows wh at contributions are 

expected.

To the extent that these ten employees or oth er State patronage employees 

receive compensation “provided for or made possible in whole or in pa rt by any 

Act of Congress,” we believe th at the promises of continued employment, compensation, or other benefits made by State officials as c onsidera tion for financial 

support of a political party are in app are nt violation of 18 U.S.C. 600.

We recommend a ref err al of this ma tte r to the Attorney General for his 

determination whether the fac ts developed by our audit justify furth er action, 

particular ly in the ligh t of the broadening amendment of 18 U.S.C. 600 by 

the Fed era l Election Campaign Act. Because of the ir continuing intere st and 

adminis trative jurisdicti on under non-criminal provisions of the Hatch Act 

(5 U.S.C. 1501 et. seq.), we also recommend forwardin g copies of this report to the 

Secretary of T ranspo rtation and the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission.

We furth er recommend th at this matt er be brought to the atte ntion of the 

Congress for consideration whether legislative actio n may be warranted.

This GAO report offers a clear and unbiased account of how the infamous political kickback system has worked in Indiana .

Following the audit and investiga tion, the GAO then accepted the recommendation of the director of their Office of Fed eral Elections and referred the matt er 

to the Attorney General of the United States to determine if legal action was 

justified, also to the Civil Service Commission, the Department of Tra nsp ortation, and the Congress “for its consideration as to whethe r legis lative action may 

be warr anted .”

No action was forthcoming from the Ju stic e Department, which probably found, 

as their l etter to th is Committee indicates in general altho ugh not in this specific 

case, th at prosecution was difficult under the presen t language of Sections 600 

and 601. Justice Department representativ es are here and can respond to this 

themselves. The Department of Tra nsp ortation left the matter up to the discretion of the Civil Service Commission and the Commission unde rtook an investiga ­

tion in Indiana. My understanding is th at they did not find sufficient evidence to 

esta blish a case aga inst an individual, which perhaps has also been a problem 

the Jus tice Department has faced.

H.R. 2020 is the response from this particular Ind ian a Congressman. It is my 

effort to p ut an end to this Two Pe r Cent Club an d all that i t stands for.

Despite a 1073 India na law to the c ontrary the Two Percen t Club in Indiana is 

alive and well, un fortunately. The 1073 law which became effective July 2 of t ha t 

yea r provides that no Sta te employees may solicit or receive by solicitation 

political contributions, no r could such contributions be re quired of them. (In diana 

Code, Title 60. Section 1314.)

I have a copy of a let ter to one of our Sta te officials which one of my constitu ­

ents wrote and sent to me. This was written las t November and describes an 

active political patronage system. I enclose a copy with proper names deleted.

“T am an employee of the Indiana State High way Commission, For t Wayne 

Dis tric t, classified as an Equ ipment Operator II. I have worked for the Highway 

Commission for 2 years and I ’m par ticipating in the Commission’s Educatio nal 

Assistanc e Plan, atte nding Pu rdue Extension on my oto time in pur sui t of a 

degree in Civil Engineering Technology.
13

‘‘This l ett er is being w ritte n w ith all due respect to you and your adm inistration, 

hut there are some things going on within the Highway Commission th at I 

strongly feel need to be brought to y our attention. The other day I was in the gas 

house at ou r District Garage when—approached me. He asked me if I had filled 

out my E duc atio nal Assistance application forms for the next semester. When I 

answered affirmatively, he pointed out to ine th at I was behind in my 2% 

patronage payments and that I couldn’t plan on him signing them until I paid up 

some money. Now, to my knowledge, the Edu cational Assistance Pla n is fun ded 

by taxpay er’s money, not by th e Republican Sta te Cen tral Com mittee; therefore, 

the fact th at I do or don’t have my 2% paid up should be imm aterial. There is 

no doubt to the fact tha t this type of political coercion has been exercised countless 

times in the past, and I have a witness th at will verify this particular instance.

“This type of pressure, to the best of my knowledge, is being exerted throug hou t 

Fo rt Wayne District, and I assume throug hou t the state. Two employees of 

Goshen Sub-District were dismissed las t week. I believe that it was more than 

coincidental th at they w’ere behind in their 2% as well. You have sta ted publicly 

several times th at thi s patronage system is volunt ary and no one would be 

reprimanded for failu re to pay thi s money. I would sincerely app reciate your 

reassurance t ha t thi s will not happen to me. In addition, I have an annual rai se 

due to me next month. I ’m sure I will be told, as I was las t year, th at i t will not 

w

be approved until I have paid my 2% payments.

“I am trying to str ess the fa ct th at you r subordin ates have take n this pa tronag e 

system far beyond the realm of volunteerism. I do not blame you and have grea t 

admiration for your adm inistration. We all appreciated the raise last year. Bu t 

th at was last year and time goes on. We employees th at are withholding our 2% 

in sympathy with the ISEA have no personal objections to you or your adm inistration . We simply do no t apprecia te being consta ntly p ressu red for money, when 

we have financial problems of our own.

“My u ltim ate desire i s to pursue a ca ree r with the Highway Commission. I have 

a desire to work for the government, but my conscience will not allow me to put 

up with any undue political coercion. I may even be fired for writing thi s le tte r 

to you. B ut you have a right to be informed of this s itua tion, and that knowledge 

is more imp ortant to me tha n the possibility of losing my job. Please take thi s 

matter to heart.”

That constituen t aske d th at I do something. Febru ary 5, 1975 I did so. I 

introduced this legislation before us today.

There are many exam ples of the fac t that the 2% system still prevails. Ju st 

last week a study group designed to find ways to improve the Ind iana Republican 

Pa rty was described in The Indianapolis Star, October 8, as voting to retain the 

Two Perc ent Club which, the newspaper noted, “accounted for 20 per cent of the 

Sta te Central Committee’s 1974 budget of nearly $2 million.” This newspaper 

article fu rth er revealed the inoperability of the 1973 Indiana law’ when it quoted 

the State GOP C hairman as listing th e following increases in contributions each 

month from the pay checks of state patronage employeees: the $238,000 in 1972 

increased to $438,000 in 1973, thence to $544,000 in 1974 and to an estim ated $500,- 

000 this year. These were described as “volun tary” contributions. Workers, according to the August 5, 1973 Courier-Jou rnal & Times, have “involu ntarily ” 

forked over the ir 2%.

In an October 12, 1975 a rticle The Indianapo lis St ar concluded th at : “Patro n- 

* age still is the na me of the game in sta te government and political par ty financing.” This is a long time practice in Ind iana and the cloak of voluntarism does 

nothing to hide it. I would be the first to say that it is a practice common to 

both political parties, some would even point to a former Democrat as the fo und er 

of the Tw’O Percent Club over 40 years ago and the October 12 issue of The St ar 

» noted th at D emocrats only collected about $021 a month in political patronage —

because the Democrats control so few’ key sta te positions. I have with me some 

examples I w’ould like to read that indicate how’ common the practice still is.

Obviously, then, this legislation. H.R. 2920 is needed. No one can gua ran tee t ha t 

it will reach all the offenders, but it will close a loophole t ha t the Justice De partment indicates needs to be closed.

As I read this bill I have introduced, it seems to me that it would reac h all 

employees of sta te and local government who are working on projects receiving 

any federal funds. The legislation prohibits political discriminatio n where 

federal funds are involved “in whole or in pa rt by any Act of Congress.” The 

pic ture has changed a great deal since the 1930’s. Fed eral fund s are a vita l and 

essential element in many sta te and local programs involving health, education,

62-6 63— 76------ 2
14

law enforcement, manpower training, community development, water pollution 

control programs. It is my expectation that all those individuals employed by 

the sta te in positions where there is a fed eral-state match or in positions made 

by the Two Perc ent Clubs and those hiring these employees will find themselves 

subject possible in whole or in part by federal funds will find themselves unre achable to fine a nd /or imprisonment if they make demands regarding political affiliation or contribution. Tha t will be a gre at day in Indiana and in all other states 

when contributions to a political party can no longer bear the stigma of “kickbacks” labels because they resu lt from subtle thr eats of deprivation of employment or compensation from a politica l party.

Mr. R oush. Thank yon. Mr. Chairman. I have seated with me Dr.

Phyllis O’Callaghan, my legislative assistant, who has been of great

help in the preparation of this legislation and the testimony I am about

to give, and, Mr. Chairman, my testimony is somewhat lengthy. There

will be certain parts which I will omit in my oral presentation. How- *

ever, I would hope th at the entire testimony might be made part of

your record.

Mr. Hungate. Without objection, it will be so ordered.

Mr. Roush. I want to thank the subcommittee for giving me the «

opportunity of testifying on this piece of legislation this morning, 

and it is my pleasure to appear to testify in support of II.R. 2920, 

a bill to amend sections 600 and 601 of title 18, United States Code, 

relating to the granting or deprivation of benefits provided fo r or made 

possible by any act of Congress, on the basis of political activity.

These sections of the law date back to 1939 and are part of the 

original Hatch Act. They read as follows:

Section 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity.

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, work, 

compensations, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in 

pa rt by any Act of Congress, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for 

any political activity or f or the sup port of or opposition to any candidate or any 

political pa rty in an any election, shall be fined not more tha n $1,000 or imprisoned n ot more tha n one year, or both.

Section 600 of title 18, United States Code was amended by Public 

Law 92-225, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (sec. 202), 

and certain terms were added. I will not read that portion, Mr. Chairman. However, that which was added really did not go to the substance 

of the bill, but merely expanded it somewhat, that is, the substance of 

law.

Now, section 601 of the present law, “Deprivation of employment 

or other benefit for political activity,” reads as follows:

Whoever, except as required by law, direc tly or indirectly, deprives, atte mpts 

to deprive, o r thre atens to deprive any person of any employment, position, work, 

compensation, or other benefit provided for or made possible by a ny Act of Congress app rop riating funds for work relief purposes, on account of race, creed, 

color, or any political activity, support of, or opposition to any candidate or any 

political p arty in any election, sha ll be fined not more tha n $1,000 or imprisoned 

not more than one year, or both.

Specifically. H.R. 2920 will amend section 601 of title 18. U.S.C. 

to make it clear tha t an individual cannot be deprived of or excluded from employment or benefits provided for or made possible in 

whole or in part by any act of Congress, on the basis of political 

activity.

Under th e present wording of section 601, protection against dep rivation of employment due to political activity is restricted to work 

projects funded by Congress. Aly intent in the bill is to extend the
protection of section 601 to any program o r activity receiving Federal 

financial assistance by eliminating the reference to work relief and by adding “in whole or in pa rt” after the phrase “made possible.” * Second, sections 600 and 601 are complementary', the first dealing with promises of employment and the latter with deprivation of em­ ployment due to political activity or affiliation. In both, I would in­ crease the fine that is presently imposed for violations of either of these two sections of the code from the present minimal and mean­ ingless amount of $1,000 to $25,000. In the campaign reform legisla­ tion we have been passing of late the $25,000 figure is common and represents a more accurate and fitting punishment for violation of 

these acts today. I am pleased to note that the Justice Department concurs in the need for this legislation. Their letter to you, Mr. Chairman, indicates tha t since section 601 dealing with the denial of benefits on the basis of political activity is confined to Federal “relief" projects, indicating the origin of this act. they do not feel they could apply eithe r of these two sections to situations where nonwelfare benefits are involved and therefore prosecution of these sections is difficult, if not impossible, on this score. The changes I propose—namely, the increase in the fine, the deletion of certain restricting words, and the addition o f language extending the scope of section 601—would make prosecution of vio­ lations of these sections of the law prohibiting political discrimina­ tion in the form of promises of or denial of employment based on 

political activity or the lack thereof possible. I would like to document for you the reasons why I introduced this legislation, particularly from the abuses o f political patronage tha t exist in Indiana. And I might add. Mr. Chairman, if under the law this could happen in Indiana, it could happen in any State in the 

Union. It is my hope tha t the Justice Department, which has pursued vio­ lators of these sections of the law to the extent that has been possible, 

will provide examples from other States. Although my testimony will appear to have a partisan ring from here on out, I want to assure my Republican colleagues on the sub­ committee that Democratic administrations have not been blameless and th at, as I will point out later, it was a Democratic Governor who 

probably started our infamous “Two Percent Club.” The State of Indiana has had, and has, the reputation of having one of the most political State employee hiri ng policies in the Nation. This has been the practice under administrations of both political parties. When a new Governor takes over, virtually every’ State employee, except those who fall under the merit system, is subject to change. A prime example is the State highway commission. Not only is a new chairman of the commission appointed, but also everv district engineer may lx* replaced, usually on the basis of political loyalty rathe r than ability. This has on occasion deprived the State o f quali­ fied. dedicated public servants, because they were of the “wrong” 

political persuasion. Indiana is thus well known for its “Two Percent Club.” I believe that this practice of extracting a portion of an employee’s wages as tribute cannot be allowed to continue as a precondition to employment or to continuance in employment. Political parties should be allowed
to support themselves throu gh voluntary contributions, and Government employees should have that freedom of expression available to 

them just as any other citizen. But, they should not be deprived of 

employment or a portion of their compensation after employment. 

There is no place in the courthouse or the statehouse for the bagman. 

States must have the very best qualified people they can attract to 

public service; the people deserve no less. Political loyalty should not 

be the criterion in hirin g public employees nor should lack of political 

loyalty be the criterion for firing them.

I have long been offended by this practice in Indiana and I with 

many others have stood back and I have restrained myself for too 

long. My determination to tr y to do something was strengthened when 

1 learned that lifeguards, young men and women, at the Indiana reservoirs were required to be of a certain political affiliation in order to 

get the job and were required to contribute 2 percent of their wages 

to the party in power in order to keep their jobs. I found this distressing and ridiculous.

The reservoir issue broug ht to mind this legislation. Some of these 

reservoirs are in my present congressional district ami in the congressional district I represented before redistrictin g in Indiana in 1968. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I have listed the reservoir projects and I was 

struck with the fact that these lifeguards were having the ir problems 

and tha t much of the money th at went into the reservoirs was Federal 

funds and I have listed for you the various projects in Indiana and 

you will note the amount of Federal funds that went into construction 

and the amount of Federal funds that goes into the operation and 

maintenance of these reservoirs.

I might add. Mr. Chairman, that the reservoir, although constructed 

primarily with Federal funds, 99 percent, I believe, or 95 percent, have 

been leased to the State although built with Federal funds, and that 

is the way the State comes into the picture on this Two Percent Club 

and on the discriminatory hiring practices.

Now, my efforts to do something at the Federal level were stimulated 

by other events. In July of 1973 the General Accounting Office announced tha t they were “referring to the Attorney General of the 

T nited States the question of whether a patronage collection system in 

the State of Indiana, which provides financial support to political 

parties, violates Federal law.”

At. the same time the Comptroller General of the GAO called 

the matter to the attention of the Congress, the Secretary of T ransportation, and the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission.

GAO's Office of Federal Flections had made an audit and a field investigation of the Indiana Republican State Central Committee covering the period from April 7 to December 31.1972. Particu lary . GAO 

was concerned with possible violations of section 600 of title 18, 

U.S.C., prohibiting “ promises of employment made possible, in whole 

or in par t, by any act of Congress, as a consideration, favor, or reward 

for any political activity, or fo r support of a political party.”

At that time GAO found approximately 7.400 of Ind ian a’s 12.000 

State employees were patronage employees. I would like at this time, 

at least in my written testimony, to quote extensively from the pertinent paits of that GAO release.*

It states, among other things :
17

The GAO audit of payroll records of a sample of 64 employees of the Ind ian a 

Sta te Highway Commission showed that 10 of these employees were compensated 

from Federal funds provided by the Fed eral Highway Administration.

I would like to quote another paragrap h:

Patronage employees are expected to contribute to the political party at the 

rate of two perc ent of their Sta te earnings. Prior to employment, an individual 

applying for a patronage position must complete a Patronag e Clearance Form 

which, among oth er data, requ ires the endorsements of 10 party functionaries 

rang ing from Precinc t Vice-Committeeman to the Sta te Chairman. This form also 

con tain s the following two quest ion s: One “What is you r political pa rty affiliation?” and two, “Would you be willing to con trib ute regu larly to the India na 

Republican State Centra l Committee?”

Under the patrona ge collection procedures employed by the Sta te Highway 

Commission, a patron age personnel section in the Commission is directly respon-

• sible for interviewing and hiring for patrona ge positions. This section also m aintai ns comprehensive reco rds of ann ual employee pledges as well as records of 

collections based on those pledges. The Dire ctor of Patronage Personnel in the 

Sta te Highway Commission stated th at she has the autho rity to suspend pay 

increases in cases where employees make ina deq uate donations. However, she

• stated th at it had been unnecessary to exercise this autho rity because each employee accepting Sta te employment in a patron age position knows what contributions are expected.

The GAO report, of course, is available to the subcommittee, Mr. 

Chairman, and if the subcommittee does not have a copy, I have a 

copy which I will supply for you.

This GAO report offers a clear and unbiased account of how the infamous political kickback system has worked in Indiana.

Following the audit and investigation, the GAO then accepted the 

recommendation of the Director of their Office of Federal Flections 

and referred the m atter to the Attorney General of the United States 

to determine if legal action was justified. It also referred the matter 

to the Civil Service Commission, the Department of Transportation, 

and the Congress “for its consideration as to whether legislative action 

may be warranted.”

No action was forthcoming from the Justice Department, which 

probably found, as its letter to this subcommittee indicates in general 

although not in th is specific case, that prosecution was difficult under 

the present language of sections 600 and 601. Justice Department representatives are here or will be, I understand, Mr. Chairman, and can 

respond to this themselves. The Department of Transportation left 

the matter up to the discretion of the Civil Service Commission, and 

the Commission undertook an investigation in Indiana. My under-

• standing is that they did not find sufficient evidence to establish a case 

against an individual, which perhaps has also been a problem the J us ­

tice Department has faced.

Il.R. 2920 is the response from this particu lar Indiana Congress-

• man. It is my effort to put an end to this Two Percent Club and all 

th at it stands for.

Despite a 1973 Indian a law to the contrary, the Two Percent Club 

in Indiana is alive and well, unfortunately. The 1973 law, which became effective July 2 of tha t year, provides that no State merit employees may solicit or receive by solicitation political contributions, nor 

could such contributions be required of them—Indiana Code, title 60, 

section 1314.

I have a copy of a letter to one of our State officials which one of 

my constituents wrote and sent to me. It was w ritten last November 

and describes an active political patronage system.
18

T am enclosing a copy an d I would like to rea d th at lette r at th is 

tim e, Mr. Chairma n, ancl I am now r eading th e l etter fro m the constituent, and I have delete d certain na mes:

I am an employee of the Ind ian a Sta te Highw ay Commission, For t Wayne 

District, classified as an Equ ipment Ope rator II. I have worked for the Highway 

Commission for two years and I’m p art icipatin g in the Commission’s Educa tiona l 

Assis tance Plan, atte ndi ng Pu rdue Exten sion on my own time in pur sui t of a 

degre e in Civil Engin eering Technology.

Thi s let ter is being wr itte n with all due respect to you and your adm inistration —this was not wr itte n to me—but there are some things going on w ithin the 

High way Commission th at I strongly feel need to be brou ght to your attention.

The oth er day I was in the gas house at our Dis tric t Gara ge w he n-------- approached me. He asked me if I had filled ou t my Educati onal Assistan ce application forms for the nex t semester. When I answ ered affirmatively, he pointed out 

to me t ha t I was behind in my 2 percent patronag e paym ents and that I couldn ’t 

plan on him signing them unt il I paid up some money. Now, to my knowledge, t he 

Edu cation al Assistance Plan is funded by taxpay ers' money, not by the Republica n Sta te Central Com mit tee; there fore, the fact tha t I do or don’t have my 2 

perc ent paid up should be imm ater ial. There is no doubt to the fac t th at this type 

of politica l coercion has been exercised countless times in the past, and I have a 

witn ess th at will verify thi s pa rti cu lar instance .

This type of pressure, to the best of my knowledge, is being exer ted thro ugho ut 

Fo rt Wayne District, and I assum e throu ghout the State. Two employees of 

Goshen Sub-D istrict were dismissed las t week. I believe th at it was more tha n 

coinc identa l th at they were behin d in the ir 2 percent as well. You — ha ve stated 

publicly severa l times th at this patr ona ge system is vol unt ary and no one would 

be repr imanded for fai lur e to pay this money. I would sincerely apprecia te your 

rea ssu ran ce th at thi s will not happen to me. In addition, I have an annu al raise 

due to me next month. I’m sur e I will be told, as I was las t year, th at i t will not 

be a pproved u ntil I have paid my 2 perce nt payments.

I am trying to stress the f ac t th at your subo rdinates have take n this patr ona ge 

system fa r beyond the realm of volunteerism. I do not blame you and have 

gre at adm iration for you r adm inistra tion. We all appreci ated the rais e las t 

year. But t ha t was l ast y ear an d time goes on. We employees th at a re withh olding 

ou r 2 percent in symp athy with the I.S.E.A. have no personal objection to you 

or your adm inistration. We simply do not appreci ate being cons tantl y pressured 

for money, when we have financ ial problems of our own.

My ulti mate desire is to pur sue a care er with the Highway Commission. I 

hav e a desire to work fo r th e the government, but my conscience will not allow me 

to pu t up with any undue politica l coercion. I may even be fired for wr itin g 

thi s lette r to you. But you—ha ve a right to be inform ed of t his situatio n, and th at 

knowledge is more imp ort ant to me tha n the possib ility of losing my job. Ple ase 

tak e t his m att er to heart.

Tha t constitu ent in his le tter to me asked me to do something.

On Fe br ua ry 5, 1975, I did so. I introduced the leg islation which 

is before us today.

There are ma ny exa mples of the fact that the 2 perce nt system still 

prevail s. Ju st last week a stu dy grou p designed to find ways to 

im prove the In di an a Re publi can Part y was des crib ed in the In ­

dian ap olis Star, Octob er 8, as votin g to retain the Two Pe rce nt 

Club whic h, the news pa pe r noted, “accounted fo r 26 perce nt of the 

St at e centra l co mm ittee’s 1974 budget of nearly $2 million .” Th is n ewspa pe r art icl e fu rthe r rev ealed the inop erab ility of In di an a law when 

it q uoted the S tate G OP ch air man —an d he is here today, Mr. Ch airman—as lis tin g the follo wi ng increases in co ntr ibuti on s each month 

fro m the pay checks of Sta te patro nage emp loyees: Th e $238,000 in 

1972 increased to $438,000 in 1973, then ce to $544,000 in 1974 and to an 

estim ate d $500,000 th is ye ar. These were des cribed as “v olun tary ” 

contr ibu tio ns. Work ers , according to the Au gu st 5, 1973 CourierJo ur na l & Times, have “in vo lunt arily vo lu ntar ily ” forked over th ei r 

2 pe rce nt.
19

In an October 12,1975 article, the Indianapolis S tar concluded that r 

“Patronage still is the name of the game in State government and 

political party financing.’* This is a long-time practice in Indiana and 

the cloak of voluntarism does nothing to hide it. I would be the fii*st 

to say tha t it is a practice common to both political parties. Some 

would even point to a former Democrat as the founder of the Two 

Percent Club over 40 years ago, and the October 12 issue of the Sta r 

noted tha t Democrats only collected alxuit $621 a month in political 

patronage—because the Democrats control so few key State positions. 

I have with me some examples I would like to call to your attention to 

indicate how common the practice still is.

Mr. Chairman, I did not make copies. I think I have perhaps sufficient copies here for all the members in attendance today.

The first exhibit I am referring to, or extraneous matter T am 

referring to, has a letterhead, Indiana Republican State Central Committee and what it does is to give instructions as to how the 2 percent 

is to be collected. Then, Mr. Chairman, I have included a letter from 

a young friend of mine who is now in the Indiana House of Representatives. He refers to this bill and informs me in this letter tha t, 

“just the other week I had a call from a State highway employee who 

was told that he wouldn’t be given a raise until he paid his 2 percent."

Another case I had this year was a laborer at a State fish and wildlife area who was refused a pay increase of 11 cents an hour because 

of “improper attitude toward the department of natural resources,” 

translated to mean failure to pay 2 percent. It goes on to relate his 

own personal experience and the fact tha t he lost his job because he 

had not paid the 2 percent.

I come from a little town in Indiana and we have a rather active 

high school there. We have some of the finest swimmers in the Nation 

in my hometown, Mr. Chairman, and many of these young people like 

to work as lifeguards on the three reservoirs in the area. I have 

included here an editorial from the school newspaper and a rath er 

impressive story of how one young man went through the political 

system in order to get a job. He d idn 't get it, as the article will point 

out, but I would hope tha t the members of the subcommittee might 

read th at letter.

I have a copy of another letter and it was written by a friend of 

mine, Mr. Chairman. He is the Republican county chairman in W hitley County. His father is a former Governor of Indiana. He is very 

active in local civic affairs as well as political affairs, and he concludes 

his letter making an appeal for voluntary contributions by saying:

We ask for your cooperation and certainly hoiie that you are not delinquent 

when the list is sent to the Governor on February 2!).

Now, those are rath er old. And then, I have a form here which goes 

back to 1971.

Patronage payments are due on Monday after pay on Friday. Payments not 

made by Tuesday noon mean automatic dismissal.

Another one here which is dated March of 1973:

Your application for political clearance has been processed and approved by the Indiana Republican State Central Committee. This card may be used as proof 

of political clearance.

A letter from the superintendent of the State Highway Commission 

sta tes :
20

Gentlemen, when you hired into the Sta te Employment you were informed 

then, th at eaeli and every paycheck you received, two (2) perc ent was due and 

payable to the Republican Party .

Now. I did not make this rule, but I have been charged with collecting this 

two (2) percent and turn ing it in.

It is not fa ir for your fellow workmen to pay his sha re and you lettin g if go 

this way. [sic] I am warning you to “shape up or ship out”. This m ust be paid in 

full by March 11, 1974 or I will be in the process of making out 104’s which 

means letting you go.

I have another handwritten letter from the Washington Country 

Republican Central Committee and a rath er recent article, dated 

the 8th of September, 1974, in which the Republican S tate Chairman 

Thomas S. Milligan—and as I indicated, he is here, Mr. Chairman, so 

I'm not talking behind his back—is quoted as saying that he would 

recommend firing State patronage workers who renege on pledges to 

voluntarily contribute 2 percent of their pay to the party.

Finally, with due credit to a former Republican Governor of In ­

diana, Mr. Chairman, I have a directive issued back in May of 1971 

bv then-Governor Whitcomb. I t stat es:

I am dire ctin g the d epartment heads of this adm inistration to cease the collection of 2 perce nt political contributions effective with the May pay period.

Obviously, Mr. Chairman, that is a directive which was never 

followed.

To me this is legislation which is needed. No one can guarantee that 

it will reach all offenders, but as the Justice Department in its communication to the subcommittee indicates, it will close a loophole that 

needs to be closed.

It seems to me th at my bill would reach all employees of State and 

local government who are working on projects receiving any Federal 

funds. The legislation prohibits political discrimination where Federal funds are involved “in whole or in part by any act of Congress.”

The picture has changed a great deal since the 1930’s. Federal funds 

are a vital and essential element in many State and local programs involving health, education, law enforcement, manpower tra ining, community development, water pollution control. It is my expectation 

that all those individuals employed by the State in positions where 

there is a Federal-State match or in positions made possible in whole 

or in pa rt by Federal funds will find themselves unreachable by the 

Two Percent Club and that those persons hiring these employees will 

find themselves subject to fine and/o r imprisonment if they make 

demands rega rding political affiliation or contribution. It will be a 

great day in Indiana and in all other States when contributions to a 

political party can no longer bear the stigma of “kickback” labels 

because they result from subtle threats of deprivation of employment 

or compensation from a political party.

Again, Mr. Chairman. I realize I have dwelt on the State of Indiana 

and on its system, but I think this Two Percent Club amounts to a 

“kickback.” It is an unsavory tribute. I t violates the spirit of campaign 

reform. It is demeaning to politics and the political process, and I 

would hope, Mr. Chairman, that your subcommittee would give favorable consideration to the bill which I have introduced.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hungate. Thank you, Mr. Roush, for calling this problem to 

our attention and for the legislative proposal you have presented to us.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Wiggins for 5 minutes.
21

Mr. Wiggins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding to me first 

because I must leave and 1 would like to ask several questions. At the outset, it must be noted by all the members that section 601 is not limited to a payment of money, b ut speaks of deprivation of em­ ployment by reason of support or lack thereof of a political candidate. 

It is also to lie noted that by its terms, no class of employee is exempt save only that the employee has to benefit directly or indirectly as the 

result of a Federal program in some way. Given general revenue sharing and given the pervasive nature of 

Federal funding in State activities, I think it is safe to conclude tha t very few State employees, maybe none, could not trace part of their 

compensation to some Federal matching fund, in some measure. Now, if that be true, I have a series of questions. You may disagree with the premise, but you did mention tha t nearly all employees would 

be covered and I th ink that would be true. Could the Governor of a State fire his administrative assistant for 

failin g to support the Governor in a campaign for reelection?

Mr. Roush. I cannot see in that instance that we have a Federal Government in any wav paying the Governor's salary or running the Governor’s office. I can ’t see th at tha t would be the case there.

Mr. Wiggins. Well, is it your intention that political officers elected 

in a State would be prohibted from hiring their principal assistants on 

the basis of party affiliation ?

Mr. Roush, t thin k my intention is tha t a person could not be 

deprived of employment because of party affiliation.

j\Ir. Wiggins. Would it be inappropriate for a new Governor coming 

in to inquire of a political affiliation of his principal staff assistants?

Mr. Roush. No. I do not think it would be inappropriate to inquire. 

No, I do not.

Mr. Wiggins. You don’t thin k the Justice Department could put 

together a conspiracy case if he hired only Democrats or Republicans, 

if that were compatible with the State administration ?

Mr. R ousii. No. No, I don’t as a matter of fact, in its letter to the 

subcommittee the Justice Department points out how difficult it is to prosecute a conspiracy case and I ’m sure that you as a lawyer and I as a 

lawyer both know that.

Mr. Wiggins. Do you think the legislation would be strengthened 

if we exempted a certain category of employees? I don’t know what the analogy would be but I understand there, is something called schedule C in the Federal system which represents Presidential ap­ pointees and I would gather tha t under the present administration there is high incidence of Republicans being hired under that schedule and I have no doubt, th at they are hired in part because of their prio r 

political affiliation. Is there room for such an exemption in the sta tute to which you propose?

Mr. Rousii. Well, there is room for it, I think, but T just wonder 

if that would pertain because the people who are hired at tha t level 

are primarily administration officials whose activities do not relate 

to a Federal act.

Mr. Wiggins. Assuming tha t-----

Mr. R ousii. Now. if there is room for it I would have no objection 

to it. I think a Governor deserves to have a staff that is loyal to him, whether he is Republican or Democrat. What I do object to—well,
22

T might point out that in Indiana now with our merit system that 

we don’t particularly have this trouble but it is with the nonmerit 

employees and in fact it is with the employees at the very lowest level 

that we have the problem.

Mr. Wiggins [continuing]. Surely, and I appreciate the problem 

there but the statute is not so limited and I hope tha t we do not pass 

a law tha t will prevent a Governor from assembling a politically 

compatible staff at the upper echelons and frankly discharging them 

if they cease to manifest that loyalty in the future.

Mr. R ousn. Mr. Wiggins, it seems to me if I were a Governor of a 

State I would be concerned, of course, about the political affiliation 

of an individual but T would lie primarily concerned with the ability 

of that person to perform in that job, and while political consideration would come into the picture, mv concern would rest primarily «

with his ability and that I would not therefore be depriving him of 

employment because of his political affiliation. T would be depriving 

him of employment because he either lacked the ability or I found 

someone else who had the ability and did fit my political persuasion. *

Mr. Wiggins. I understand those are high-sounding words but I 

tell you. if my administrative assistant, whom I hired on the basis of 

his perceived loyalty to me. campaigned for mv opponent, T would 

fire him and I think you would do the same. If you wouldn't you 

would be foolish.

I just want to raise the problem as an area we ought to consider 

because the legislation is sweeping and Federal money seems to be 

infused in almost every corner of a State function nowadays.

Other questions. Is a purely voluntary, unsolicited political contribution to lie prohibited ?

Mr. Roush. Absolutely not.

Mr. Wiggins. Is the simple solicitation without more, and assume 

for the purposes of the question tha t there is no other evidence of 

coercion, but simple solicitation by a party, nongovernment official 

inappropriate under the legislation ?

Mr. Roush. No.

Mr. Wiggins. Is simple solicitation without more by a government 

official prohibited by the legislation ?

Mr. Roush. I'm sorry. I don’t understand that question.

Mr. Wiggins. Could the Governor solicit the State employees, if 

you had no other evidence of coercion other than the fact tha t he was 

a Governor ? And confine the answer to solicitation.

Mr. Roush. I would assume th at that could be the case. I think as *

in any criminal act you are going to have to find an inten t to violate 

the act.

Mr. Wiggins. What about collection as well as solicitation ? Without 

more. Tha t is, could the money be paid to your immediate supervisor? •

Mr. Roush. Well, now, you are getting close to the line.

Mr. Wiggins. Agreed.

Mr. Hungate. The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. Wiggins. If you would care to answer for the record later I 

would appreciate it.

Mr. Hungate. You may complete your answer now if you want to.

Mr. R oush. As I said, lie is close to the line and I think it would be 

a matter for a Federal prosecutor to determine whether or not the
23

spirit of the law, rather, the letter of the law, the intent of the law had 

been violated.

Mr. Hungate. Without objection, the extraneous material to which 

you referred earlier in your testimony will be made a part of the 

record.

Ms. Iloltzman?

Ms. IToltzman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Roush, I want to compliment you on bringing this serious prob­ lem to our attention. I would hope that you would reconsider your answer to the last question because it seems to me tha t if direct supe­ riors, in fact, make political solicitations you are not really at the line of coercion you are over the line. Direct superiors may make recom­ mendations for promotions. I am sure they make all kinds of discree tionary decisions with respect to job evaluation and the like. If a superior is soliciting subordinates for a political contribution, then there certainly is a very clear implication that the subordinate ought to respond and I think tha t the pressure would be very strong. If the 

• bill is enacted, I would hope tha t we don't leave hanging the matter

of superior’s solicitation of political contributions. Let me ask you a question about State enforcement of State laws respecting this problem, because it seems to me that since, as you indicate, almost every employee in the State would be covered, we are talking about the Federal Government’s taking a big step forward with respect to regulation of certain State laws. I gather there is a 

law in India na prohibiting this kind of 2 percent activity ?

Mr. R oush. Tha t is right. I cited that in my testimony, Ms. Iloltzman.

Ms. H oltzman. What is the history of enforcement, of that statute?

Mr. Roush. Well, as I indicated also by my testimony, there has been 

verv little enforcement, if any, of that State law.

Ms. Holtzman. Has there been any enforcement of the statute?

Mr. Roush. Well, I can't answer with authority. I don’t know of any time th at it was enforced or where people were prosecuted for its violation. But, I can't answer authoritatively and say that prosecutions 

were not made for violations of the 1973 State law.

Ms. Holtzman. I think it would be helpful to have in the record some 

indication of why Indiana isn't enforcing its own laws in this respect.

Mr. Roush. I would be glad to try to get for the subcommittee a 

statement from the attorney general of the State of Indiana or any other person who would be charged with the enforcement of th at par- 

’ ticu lar section of the I ndiana law.

Ms. Holtzman. T hank you very much. I have no further questions.

Mr. H ungate. What would be a reasonable length of time in which 

to obtain that response ?

1 Mr. Roush. Well, I shall write the letter today, Mr. Chairman, and

I don’t know how long.

Mr. Hungate. Well, without objection, we will leave the record open 

for tha t response for 30 days from today. Is that reasonable ?

Mr. Roush. And it is quite possible that other witnesses who are 

scheduled to appear before you are more knowledgeable than I.

Mr. Hungate. We may get the answer today.

Mr. Roush. It is possible.
24

Mr. Hungate. The gentleman from Illinois. Mr. Hyde, is recognized 

for 5 minutes.

Mr. H yde. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. T just would briefly state 

mv sympathy with the purposes of the sponsor of this bill. I think 

compelling financial contributions from people is not appropriate conduct. But I wonder if we aren 't killing a fly with a sledge hammer 

here w ith this law. I ’m very concerned that a person whose political 

loyalty is important to t ha t post and who could switch his political 

loyalties for one reason or anoth er could be locked into his job and 

I want to think about that some more.

For example, if your own administrative assistant were suddenly 

to vigorously support George Wallace’s candidacy—I'm just picking 

Mr. Wallace as an example of someone I assume you do not support— 

would you be able to fire him? 1 don't think so by looking at this law.

I really don’t.

What about hiring? A pernicious practice in mv community in my 

metropolitan area, is that you don't get these jobs without a letter from 

some political potentate and this doesn’t cover that. Frankly I would »

like to see it broader in tha t sense. I would like to see these jobs open 

to people of any and all political persuasion, race, color, creed, et 

cetera.

You talk about a person not being deprived of a job for political 

activity or opposition but what about hiring in the first place ? Let's go 

all the way and let’s open these jobs to first come, first serve.

Mr. Roush. Well, Mr. Hyde, section GOO rath er effectively deals 

with the promise of employment and it is the deprivation of employment and compensation that we are concerned with here.

Under the present law under section 601. the deprivation provision 

applies only to work relief programs and does not apply generally as 

does section 600 which relates to the promise of employment.

Air. Hyde. I know what 600 does and I don’t think it meets the 

problems of having to get clearance from your precinct captain or 

your ward committeeman before you are interviewed for the job. Get 

me a letter from the ward committeeman and then we will interview 

you. But, OK. Suppose your administrative assistant starts wearing 

George Wallace buttons around the office. Are you precluded from 

firing him?

Mr. Roush. That would be the day tha t my administrative assistan t would ever wear a George Wallace button. I don’t think he would 

because of personal convictions.

Air. Hyde. I understand, but if this becomes the law, what can you *

do about it ?

Mr. R oush. I must confess to you I have not given th at particula r 

point, as I have indicated to Air. Wiggins, thought and consideration.

I think it should be considered. I think that, as I indicated—I think 4

the Governor should have certain leeway in the conduct of his office.

I think we should have leeway in the conduct of our office in the 

selection of our people. T would just have to give it additional thought,

Air. Hyde, to be frank with you. I appreciate what you say.

Air. Hyde. I don’t have an answer either and as I say, I am sympathetic to what you are try ing to do. Let’s all think about it and 

maybe we can come up with something.

Thank you. I yield back my time.

Air. Hungate. Thank you, Air. Hyde.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Russo, for 

5 minutes.

Mr. Russo. Tha nk you. Just a comment at this point. I would like to think pa rt of our function as a legislative subcommittee is to see to it that the legislation is drafted with the intent of all parties. I certainly wouldn’t stand for legislation that would say that if my administrative assistant should be sympathetic to my opponent tha t I wouldn’t have the right to release him. I think loyalty is very im­ portant in any branch of government. I think the problem we are talking about here is something different. I would like to know how many complaints have been filed with the attorney general of the State of Indiana and, if any were filed, what action the attorney g en­ eral took. If complaints were not filed with the attorney general, where would the proper complaint be filed in In diana under the law ? Reading some of these letters, there arises the possibility of collusion between the State attorney general and members of his political party not to enforce this law. It is obvious to me, from your statement, that the law prohibits the practice of employee kickbacks. The statements made in these letters are a flagrant violation of that law and a chal­ lenge to the entire judicial system of the State of Indiana. I think the attorney general, or any local prosecutor, who fails to perform his job in this respect ought to be a possible subject for an indictment. Also, I was wondering why someone in the State of Indiana hasn’t proposed legislation for a special prosecutor to step into this particu lar situ a­ tion if they are not getting any help from their attorney general. Maybe the Democrats don’t want reform either because they are doing the same thin g. I think these are all questions that we ou ght to have before our subcommittee. We should find out what is going on; why Indiana is not enforcing the law; and why it is necessary for a Congressman to propose a change in the Federal law when the Indi ana 

law itself is very specific and prohibits this.

Air. Roush. Mr. Russo, may I speak to tha t for a moment ?

Mr. Ri ’sso. Sure.

Mr. Rousii. You put your finger on it. I am not in favor with my 

political party heads rig ht now because of the introduction of this leg­ islation. R ight now we sit on the sidelines ready to take over the Gov­ ernorship of Indiana next year or the year aft er next, after the election next year. Some years ago when for several years the Democrats con­ trolled the statehouse, my Republican friends sat on the sidelines ready to take over, looking forward to this 2-percent contribution to their party coff ers from the State employees, and no one wanted to go ahead. But, I think we are living in a different era and in a different age than we have been and I think that I might say also to you t ha t while mv party heads don’t like it and while the Republican Pa rty head doesn't like it. the people like it. They like the idea of cleaning up politics in Indiana and maybe the fact that this even poses a threat will inspire the State legislature to act more forcibly in these matters 

in the future. I would hope so. Air. Russo. I don’t know how much more forcibly the State legisla­ ture can act other than what they have said, tha t no State employee may solicit or receive by solicitation political contributions n or could such contributions be required of them. However, according to the GAO report, the employment form contains 2 questions which ap pear
26

to violate the law : “one, what is your political party affiliation, and 

two. would you be willing to contribute regularly to the Indiana Republican State Central Committee” also, these letters from employees 

and these memos from high officials—“Patronage payments are due on 

Monday afte r pay on Frid ay. Payments not made by Tuesday noon 

mean automatic dismissal”—indicate flagrant violations of the law.

That is ridiculous. I don’t care if it is a Democratic administration 

or a Republican administration, the law should be enforced.

Mr. Roush. I think perhaps—what date is on that one pa rticular 

one. Mr. Russo?

Mr. Russo. Ju ly 6.

Mr. Roush. That would have been-----

M r. Russo. That is a late one.

Mr. Roush [continuing]. P rio r to 1973.

Mr. Russo. This 1974 one isn't much better. I just can’t understand— 

we have such vigorous prosecutors back in my home State. Also, the 

Sheriklin case is used quite often in the Federal courts. Maybe that is 

the reason why you are here, because the Federal courts seem to do 

a better job than the State prosecutors in these particular cases. But 

1 do not think the Federal Government should become involved in 

State problems. The State officials ought to do the job. Maybe States 

can't control the machinery.

I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. H unoate. Thank you. You have certainly aroused the interest 

not only of the subcommittee and the Congress but also, I am sure, the 

interest of many others in this difficult problem. I yearn for the day 

when a fellow without any money would have an even chance in a 

political race with some fellow who has a lot of money. The day when 

people would get up in the morning and say, “Gee whiz, I have got a 

good Congressman, so I am contributing $100 to his campaign.” In ­

stead, people seem to wait u ntil they need something, want a job, and 

then they find party loyalty.

Let me ask about discrimination on grounds of sex. Might we wnnt 

to put a little sex in the bill. Is the omission of sex discrimination an 

oversight or is it deliberate ?

Mr. R oisn. Well, I have always favored sex, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. II ungate. In moderation.

Mr. Roush. Of course. In moderation, of course, and only when 

appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, what I did, of course, with the help I must say of the 

Justice Department, was to strike, as you will note, certain words in 

section 601 of title 18 and then add a couple of words, “in whole or in 

pa rt” leaving the section standing as it was except for striking the 

language which restricted its operations to work relief programs.

Mr. H unoate. If the subcommittee saw fit to proscribe that form of 

discrimination, von would have no objection, I take it.

Mr. Roush. Aly personal convictions would, of course, favor such 

action, but it seems to me th at we are dealing with a separate problem 

here and the thrust of what I ’m trying to do is directed to political 

activity.

Mr. Hunoate. Some of the questions that have been raised refer to 

the Governor’s chief assistant or top administrative assistant. We all 

recognize, I guess, the value of loyalty—perhaps due to its scarcity.
Would it be possible to approach this problem if the statute were 

directed at those persons in nonpolicymaking positions, whatever that 

means, or if the statute covered persons on the basis of salary level. 

Would you comment on that ?

Mr. Roush. Yes. The salary level doesn't particularly favorably 

strike me, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hungate. It is simple, though.

Mr. Roush. Finding a cutoff such as you suggest at the policymaking 

level might be appropriate. As I indicated to Mr. Hyde, 1 must confess that 1 hadn’t given it that much thought. I hadn’t given tha t par ­

ticular thought, but I'm sure we all want people who are at policymaking levels to be able to conduct their policy freely with people of 

the ir own choice and people who are of the same philosophical and 

political persuasion.

Mr. Hungate. I recognize the difficulty—it is rath er arbitrary when 

you pick a salary level. The only thing I see in its favor is the simplicity with which you could administer it. I think the ideal approach 

may be to exempt persons in policymaking positions, but I ’m not sure 

how we define “policymaking.” Any further questions? Once again, 

Mr. Roush, thank you very much, and I hope that the subcommittee 

will be able to act on this matter rather promptly. We will keep this 

record open until the 21st of November for the receipt of any requested 

documents or materials.

Mr. Roush. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the courtesies 

tha t have been extended to me here this morning. Thank you.

Mr. Hungate. Thank you very much.

[The documents referred to follow:]

I n d ia n a R epu b lic a n.

Sta te Cen tr al Co m m it tee. 

Indianapolis, Ind., December 1-i, 1978.

To Department Heads and Patron-ape Solicitors :

I would like to thank all of you for your supp ort in attend ing the December G

patrona ge meeting. It is with this type of join t cooperation th at Ind ian a’s patron age system will mainta in its place as a viable force in this adm inistration and in our P arty’s structure .

There have been some problems with 2% collections in the past, and we 

feel th at with the slight changes installed in the meeting, the workload will 

he lessened for all concerned, and the patronage system itse lf will have a more 

professional degree of uniform ity.

Con trary to wh at was said at the meeting regarding the collection schedule 

for 1974, we have decided to yield to numerous complaints and continue to 

make patronage collections Eve ry Pay Period. As you may recall, at the meeting we had decided to make collections every other pay date. It is the consensus that a move of this sort is pre mature at this time. Please continue with

collections in the same manner you have been—decry pay day.

The oth er alte ration s th at were made at the meeting were rega rding reporting procedures, and will remain as changed. These two alt era tio ns are:

1. Collection reports will show the names of all potential 2% contributors 

as opposed to only those con tributin g that particular pay period. (Potential 

con tributors will be determined by the Depar tment), and

2. White contributor card s no longer requ ire individual signatures, however, addresses and positions are re quested.

For the benefit of all dep artm ent solicitors, I am enclosing an outline which 

we feel will serve as a guideline for the 1974 patronage program.

Thank you again for your cooperation and support.

Cordially,

T h om a s S. M il lig a n,

State Chairman.
28

1974 Patronage Guide

IN D IA N A RE PU BLICA N STA TE COM MIT TEE

1. White contributor cards for every potential 2% participant are due at S tate 

Headquarters no later than the first collection date. The signature is no longer 

necessary, so all cards may be prei>ared at once. Home address and position for 

each individual must be included.

2. 191 Collection dates will be on every pay day. Note: This is contrary to 

what was said at the 12/6/73 meeting.

3. 2% donations are determined as follows: 2% of gross minus FICA, PERF,

Federal Tax, State Tax, and County Option where applicable. Insurance, bonds, 

or anything else are not to be subtracted.

When turning 2% collections to State Headquarters, please follow the following steps:

I. COLLECTIONS W

A. Issue receipts for all contributions when you receive the money

B. All receipts must be typed

C. Give original receipt to contributor

D. Return pink and yellow receipts to State Headquarters *

E. Retain blue copy for your records

II . RECEIPT S FOR STA TE HEA DQUARTERS

A. Separate pink and yellow copies

B. Arrange both groups in alphabetical order by county and by name within 

county groupings

C. Balance money with receipts

II I. COLLECTION REPORTS

A. List names of all potential 2% members alphabetically by county and by 

name within county groupings. (NOTE: Make up your collection report from 

the white cards before the first pay period and make several copies of it—please 

type. This way you will only have to type in amounts each pay day.)

B. Indicate the amount of contribution by the name.

C. If no contribution, indicate reason, i.e. refusal, vacation, termination of 

employment, etc.

D. Balance receipts, money, and collection report and bring to State Headquarters. Please try to have all collections turned in to State Headquarters within 

48 hours of the collection date.

Thank you for your cooperation.

I ndiana House of Representatives,

State House,

Indianapolis, Ind., October 8,1915.

Hon. Edward Roush,

U.S. Congressman,

House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Congressman Rou sn : Just wanted you to know I was delighted to read 

in the Indianapolis paper the other day tha t you have a bill being considered 

w’hich would try to deal with the “2%” problem here in Indiana.

Just the other week I had a call from a state highway employee who was told 

tha t he wouldn’t be given a raise until he paid his 2%. Another case I’ve had 

this year was a laborer a t a state fish and wildlife area who was refused a pay 

increase of .$0.11 an hour because of an “improper attitude toward the Department of Natural Resources,” translated to mean failure to pay 2%.

My personal experience and dislike for this system goes back to when I was 

18 years old and working for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources as 

a natu ralist in the state park system. I had already worked for the DNR for 

one summer at the same job, and was part way through my second summer, when 

all of a sudden I was asked to make the “voluntary” 2% contribution. I didn’t 

make it, and fortunately for me a friend in the DNR found me another job.
29

I ha d a bil l up th is pas t session of th e le gis la tu re to pu t all I>NIt Em plo yee s (a s we ll as a nu m be r of oth er grou ps , th e mo st im port ant of wh ich were hig h­ wa y em ploy ees) un der m er it . It did n't su rv iv e, hu t I in go ing to try ag ai n, and I 

ho pe yo ur effor ts a re suc ce ss fu l, too.

Pl ea se let me kn ow if t h ere is any w ay I c an Ik* o f a ss ista nc e.

Sinc erely , J im J ontz,

State Itepresentutive.

[F ro m H untingt on N ort h High Scho ol]

E dit ori al .— E n d Archaic T h in k in g

Po lit ic s. To da y th a t wor d affe cts ou r liv es mor e th an ju st on elec tio n da y ; it [ter ra in s to more th an who from ou r p art y we w an t to ru n fo r an office or who 

we w an t to win th e election. in In dia na on e's politica l per su as io n ca n mea n th e di fferen ce be tw ee n gett in g a st ate job or look ing eles wlier e fo r wo rk. S ta te jo bs in cl ud e part -t im e su m m er wor k a t re se rv oi rs as li fe guard s or m ai nt en an ce pe rson ne l. In clud ed am on g the ra nks of pr os pe ct iv e em ploy ee s fo r su ch jo bs are high sch ool st uden ts wh o ha ve ne ve r vo ted or re gis te re d to vote. In th is case, H un tingto n Co un ty Rep ub lic an C ha irm an P aul Jo hnso n sa id th e po litics of on e's fa m ily is co ns idered . The CA MP US be lie ve s it is u n fa ir fo r yo un g pe op le to be ju dg ed by th eir p a re n ts ’ 

pol itie s le t alon e th eir o wn p ol itic al b eliefs in g et ting a job. An d, on top of th at, th os e w ho ge t th e jo bs , th e p eo ple wh o ar e “a ffili ated ” w ith 

th e go ve rn or ’s part y, m ust ex tr act tw o percen t of th eir wag es to su pport th e 

I rnlia na Rep ub lic an S ta te C entr al Co mmittee . Co ng ressman J. E dw ard Ro us h has d ra ft ed a bill, now aw ai ting review by th e Hou se Ju dic ia ry Com mitt ee , wh ich ca lls fo r an en d to sta te po lit ic al pat ro nag e sy stem s such as In d ia n a ’s, an d he ho pe s th is will like wise put an end to “a rc haic 

th in kin g of In d ia n a politics .” The CA MP US be ile ve s th e politica l patr onage sy stem is an u nfa ir dis cri m in atory ac tio n, de pr iv in g ca pab le peop le of job s. We ho pe th at the Ho use Ju d ic ia ry Co mmitt ee pa ss es th is le gis la tion to th e floor of th e Ho use, an d we as k you to w ri te to C ha irm an P ete r Ro din o, Hou se Ju dic ia ry Co mmittee . Ho use of R ep re ­ se nt at iv es , W as hi ng ton, D.C. 20515. As Cong. Rou sh sa id , an y in te re st show n 

w;ould help.

P atro na ge S y st em Aff ects Local E m i.oym en t H opes

(B y Gar y Sc he nk el)

Eag er to ge t an out do or su m m er job, I trudg ed th ro ugh a sl us hy gr av el park in g lo t to th e do or of a pal e gr ee n ho use which se rv es as th e Sa lam on ie R es er vo ir office. Ther e I w as told by a la dy a t a ty jiew ri te r, be fo re ap plying , I m ust ge t a 

“c le ar an ce for m ” fro m th e Rep ub lic an c ou nt y ch ai rm an . W hat is a “c le ara nce fo rm ” ? I w en t to th e H untingto n Co un ty License B ure au to fin d Rep ub lica n C hair m an P au l Jo hn so n, and I ask ed a gir l a t th e counte r fo r one. W ith her bu bb le gu m sm ile sh e han ded me a st iff th re e ca rb on cop y form he ad ed by “P ATR ONAGE CL EA RA NC E FO RM .” It aske d, as I dre ad fu lly an ti cip ate d : “W hat is your po litica l p art y af filiat io n? ” And th en fo llow ed : “ Wou ld you be will in g to co ntr ib ute re gula rl y to th e In dia na Rep ub lic an S ta te C en tr al Com m ittee? ” I had ne ve r vo ted . I was un co m m itted, so no, I w as not 

w ill in g to giv e m on ey f ro m m y sa la ry t o th e R ep ub lica n Par ty . So whe n I re tu rn ed to th e lic en se bure au a ft e r su bm itting my ap plica tion, I 

fo un d a big “N O” p ri n te d a t th e bottom. W hy ? “T he pu rp os e o f th e pat ro nag e sy stem is to ge t peop le wh o sh are th e sa m e ba sic po litica l ph ilo so ph y. If yo u sta rt e d up a bu sin ess, you wo uld lik e to ha ve som ebo dy lo ya l ra th e r th an s om eone w ho wo uld no t lik e to see yo u su cc ee d. ” sa id Mr. Jo hn so n. In additio n, he sa id th a t an ov er ab un da nc e of pe op le seek re se rv oi r jobs , so th e patr onage sy stem narr ow s do wn pr os pe ctive ca ndid ate s. Sa lam on ie R es er vo ir M an ag er Neal Ca se sa id th a t even aft er ap plica tions an* re ­ vie we d by Mr. Jo hn so n an d a bo ar d of pr ec in ct co mmitt ee men , he rece ives ab out 

tw ice a s man y appli ca ti ons as t her e are jo bs a va ilab le.

62-6 63— 76-
30

“Almost every year someone fusses about the patronage system, but nothing 

is done. The p arty in power likes it, and the o ther pa rty think s they will be elected 

next y ear anyw’ay,” said Congressman J. Edw ard Roush.

But he isn’t willing to sit back and watch it continue any longer. Presently, a 

bill he dra fted awaits review by Peter Rodino’s House Jud iciary Committee, a 

bill which he hopes will wrench from state government what Mr. Johnson referred to us “more or less of a rew ard system .”

Last yea r before dra fting the bill, Roush called for a Jud iciary Committee investigation of the Indiana patronage system. The investiga tors, he indicated, discovered what they believed to be a “loophole in the law.”

The congressman said that the fede ral government put an end to political 

rew ard systems through the Civil Service Act in 1883. However, in Indiana, “the 

most notorious State (for political patronage systems) of all the 50,” the sta te 

has taken over reservoirs built mainly through federal funds.

“We have declined some workers who have had a history of not contributing 

(ex tracting two per cent of one’s wages a week fo r the Ind ian a Republican State 

Central Committee),” said Mr. Johnson.

This is one of the major injustices Congressman Roush cited in the political 

patronage system which was developed by Democrat Governor Paul C. McNutt 

in the 1930’s. “They’ll tell you it's not mandatory, but then you don’t have a job 

if you don’t pay it.”

Gates, Gates & McNagny,

Attorneys at Law, 

Columbia City, Ind., Jan uar y 24, 1972.

To those working for the Sta te Highwa y from Wh itle y County:

Most of you have been continuing to pay to the Whitley County Republican 

Pa rty as you did before.

We intend to make a full and complete R eport to the Office of Governor Whitcomb and to Mr. Lee Rush, Di str ict Highway Engineer on Febru ary 29, 1972, 

bringing all months to d ate for each of you.

I believe th at each of you know wh at we have asked you to send us and we 

attach six envelopes for each of you—one for each of the months from Jan uary 

through June.

If you have not brou ght yours to date thro ugh December, 1971, we ask that 

you include this in your Janu ary an d/or Feb ruary check.

This money will in turn be delivered to the Sta te and applied to Whitley 

County’s contribution.

We ask for your cooperation and certainly hope th at you are not delinquent 

when the lis t is sent to the Governor on Febru ary 29th.

Very sincerely,

Robert E. Gates,

Wh itle y C ounty Republican Chairman.

State of I ndiana,

I ndiana State H ighway Commis sion,

Indianapolis, Ind., Ju ly 6,1971.

INT ER-DE PARTME NT MEM O

To: All employees.

From : Ray Mendenhall, Supt.

Patronage payments are due on Monday after pay on Fri day. Paym ents not 

made by Tuesday noon mean Automatic Dismissal.

Ray Mendenhall.

Your application for political clearance has been processed and approved by 

the In dia na Republican Sta te Central Committee.

This card may be used as proof of political clearance.

State of I ndiana,

Offices of State H igh way Commis sio n,

Indianapolis, Ind., February 22,1974-

Gentlemen : When you hired into the Sta te Employment you were informed 

then, th at each and every paycheck you received, two (2) percent was due and 

payable to the Republican P arty.
Now, I did not make th is rule, but I have been charged with collecting this two 

(2) percent and tu rnin g it in. It is not fair for your fellow workmen to pay his share and you letting it go this way. I am warning you to “shape up or ship out”. This must be paid in full by March 11, 1974 or I will be in the process of making out 104's which means 

letting you go.

Sincerely, Roy E. Kittredge,

Superintendent.

Washington County Republican Central Committee.

Salem, Ind., July 5,191}.

We understand you are behind with your payments to the Party. Our understanding is 2% for State and 1% for County of Salary. Will you please take care of this matter a t once, and pay up your 2% to State and 1% to our County Treasurer, Mr. D. Jack Mahuron at Farm ers Citizens 

Bank in Salem. When you signed up for the job that was the agreement according to our understanding as it is a political job. And we will be looking forward to your 

cooperation in this matte r, by keeping your payments up to date. Thanking you, Washington County Representative Central Committee.

Murril Meadors, Chairman.

[From the Courier-Journal]

Indiana GOP Head Says He'd Fire Pledge Balkers

(By Gordon Englehart)

Indianapolis.—Republican State Chairman Thomas S. Milligan yesterday said he would recommend firing State patronage workers who renege on pledges 

to voluntarily contribute 2 per cent of their pay to the party. GOP Gov. Otis R. Bowen, however, when told of Milligan’s statement, declared : “I have said over and over that it is voluntary—and if it’s voluntary, you 

don’t fire if they don’t contribute, as long as they a re performing the ir job. “But I suspect that anybody t hat is ever fired from here on, the accusation will be it ’s because they didn’t pay their 2 per cent, when actually th ere can be 

a lot of reasons for firing.” State government’s 25.000 employes include about 7,200 patronage workers. Milligan estimates that 5,500 patronage and merit employes voluntarily give 2 per cent of their wages to the GOP State Central Committee under a 40-year-old 

system followed by both parties. Charles F. Eble, executive secretary of the Indiana State Employes Associa­ tion (ISEA ), in August urged state employes to refuse to pay the 2 per cent 

starting with Sept. 20 biweekly paychecks. On Sept. 27, Eble estimated that 1,000 of the 2,500 state highway patronage workers had stopped paying. He also said “the word is out” tha t state officials would take no action (dismissal, suspension or demotion) against balkers until 

after the Nov. 5 election.

Yesterday Milligan said Eble h ad no basis for his estimate. GOP State Headquarters had not toted up final figures ou the Sept. 20 col­ lection, Milligan said. In some areas, a spotcheck showed tha t the boycott was 

effective, but in other places, collections were up, he said.

SOM E WOR KERS “ IN DI SP EN SA BL E”

Milligan cited the central office of the Indiana State Highway Department, in the State Office Building, and the Vincennes district as reporting higher collections. Asked if he would verify Eble’s forecast of post-election firings, Milligan 

replied: “I’m not going to make that statement. Neither am I going to say no one will 

be fired after the election.” He stressed t hat he as GOP state chairman neither hires nor fires state patronage workers but only processes their political clearance.
32

“It's really a highway department matter, to implement the policy of the governor,” he said of possible firings.

.Milligan and Charles Cook, executive director of the GOI’ State Finance Committee, observed that there may be non-paying workers who are indispensable in 

some departments.

“Each case has to be addressed separately,” Milligan said.

Milligan, who is also Wayne County (Richmond) GOP chairman, noted that 

every applicant for a state patronage job tills out a “patronage clearance form” 

that must bear the written endorsements of his precinct, county, district and 

state party officials.

INDIAN A GOP CH AI RM AN FAVORS FIR ING WORKERS RENEGING ON PARTY PLEDGES

One question on t hat form reads, “would you be willing to contribute regularly 

to the Indiana Republican State Central Committee?”

As a county chairman, Milligan said, he would not endorse anyone who did not 

write, “Yes,” to the question.

If the applicant agrees, is hired but later breaks that commitment by refusing 

to pay, Milligan said, “he has jeopardized his political clearance for a patronage 

job that requires clearance.”

Milligan said he would, at the county level, urge the firing of that worker.

What about statewide, in his capacity as state chairman?

“The policy of clearance is a t stake here,” Milligan asserted. “I would recommend th at a person in a patronage job who does not m aintain political clearance 

be terminated—I don’t like the word ‘fired.’ ”

Would he wait to make that recommendation until after the election?

“I recommend it right now,” Milligan declared. “I would have said the same 

thing in July.”

Milligan and Cook echoed Bowen in avowing that contributions are voluntary.

Milligan said GOP State Headquarters had contacted the 37 state highway 

sub-district superintendents and others in other departments responsible for the 

2 percent collections, and urged them to seek out balkers and impress on them the 

desirability of supporting the party structure.

BOWE N STR ESSES JOB PERF ORMANCE jj

County chairmen also have been enlisted, Milligan said.

(Eble on Sept. 27 charged that “our members have been threatened directly 

and indirectly.” )

Milligan said Bowen’s “reaffirmation of the patronage system” before the ISEA 

convention Sept. 29 had helped collections in some areas.

Bowen told the convention its paycheck rebellion is “rather a direct slap at my 

administration” but said this should not be interpreted as “a threat to your 

status.”

The governor was somewhat touchy yesterday when asked to comment on 

Milligan’s remarks.

“You’re kind of—I mean this kindly—you’re trying to do some divide-andconquer work here between Tom and ine with this type of questioning,” he said.

“It has to be a voluntary program,” Bowen stressed. “We are approaching it 

through an appeal to their responsibility to their party and to what we think will 

be a good government under our administration.

“Their ability to remain on the job depends on th eir quality of performance.”

Certainly. Bowen said, anyone who doesn’t contribute, after agreeing in writing 

to do so, has jeopardized his political clearance.

“But that statement has to be essentially nullified by the other statement that 

it has to be voluntary and that their quality of performance would be the sole determination of whether they remain.” he added.

Bowen said both parties should be devising alternate methods of financing their 

operations should the patronage system stop.

He said Milligan had made no firing recommendations directly to him.

The governor also said Eble’s prediction of reprisals after the election “irrit ates 

me a little.” No such statement has come from his office. Bowen said.

Milligan and Cook estimated that about 40 per cent of the collections are coming 

from highway workers.

At the present rate, Cook said, the 1974 take should reach $564,000—an average 

of $47,000 a month. The 1972 total was $237,000.

Cook said the $564,000 estimate does not take into account the ISEA-inspired 

boycott—so far involving the Sept. 20 and Oct. 4 paydays. In any event, he said,
33

th e rebe lli on wou ld not af fe ct GO P fu ndin g of th e re m ai ni ng fo ur wee ks of th e 

1974 e lection c am pa ig n.

Eble on Se pt. 27 sa id th a t with ho ld in g by 1,000 em ploy ee s wo uld cu t th e G OP’s 

annual co lle cti on by $150,000.

The I SEA is 20 years old. Eb le sa id it has al m os t 5,000 mem be rs—25 per ce nt 

of th em p at ro na ge .

Sta te of I nd ia na ,

Offic es of Sta te H ig h w a y Co m m is sio n ,

In di an ap olig , I nd., M ay 1.’/, 1971.

To : All S ta te hig hw ay d is tr ic t adm in is tr ati ve a ss is ta nts .

F ro m : Claud e Hug he s.

S u b je c t: Two- pe rcen t co nt ribu tion s.

On A pr il 29, 1971 th e Hon or ab le E dgar D. W hitcom b issu ed th e fo llo w in g 

st at em en t, “I am dir ecti ng th e depart m ent hea ds of th is adm in is tr ati on to ce ase 

th e co lle cti on of 2% po litica l co ntr ib utions effective w tih th e May pa y jie riod .”

Mr. Jo e Ro ot, A dm in is tr ati ve A ss is ta nt to th e Gov erno r, ha s in fo rm ed me of 

th e follow in g:

1. Co llect a ll b ac k contr ib utions th ro ugh A pril.

2. All Co un ty C entr al Com mitt ee s m ay co lle ct contr ib utions a ft e r Ma y 1, 1971 

from th eir patr onag e sta te em plo yees. T hi s is st ri ctl y on a volu nta ry ba sis .

3. No sta te em ploy ee sh al l be resp on sible fo r th is co lle cti on .

4. All fu nd ra is in g acti v it ie s or part ic ip ati ons are st ri ctl y vo lu nt ar y.

Mr. H ungatf.. The next witness will be Mr. Roger Pauley, Deputy 

Chief, Legislation and Special Projects Section, Criminal Division, 

U.S. Department of Justice.

You have a prepared statement and, without objection, it will be 

made part of the record. I f you will identify your associates, you may 

proceed as you see fit. We welcome you.

[The prepared statement of Roger Pauley follows:]

State m ent of R oger P auley , D epu ty C h ie f , Legis la ti on an d Spec ia l

P ro je cts Sec tio n, Cr im in a l D iv is io n

Mr. Cha irm an an d m em be rs of t he Su bc om mitt ee , I am plea se d to a ppear to day 

to test if y con ce rn in g th e D epart m ent’s v iew s on H .R. 2920, a bil l to am en d se ct io ns 

000 an d 601 of T it le 18 of th e U ni te d S ta te s Code, re la ti n g to th e g ra n ti n g or 

de pr iv at io n of be ne fit s pr ov id ed fo r or m ad e po ss ible by an y A ct of Co ng res s, 

on th e ba si s of p oli ti ca l ac tivit y, an d fo r oth er pu rp os es . I be lie ve yo u hav e th e 

D epart m ent’s co mm en ts w hi ch a re co nt ai ne d in our le tt e r to C hai rm an Rod ino, 

st ati n g ou r ba sic po si tion in fa vo r of th e bill. My re m ark s to day w ill ex pan d 

up on th is ba sic po sitio n as we ll as de ve lop a few addit io nal po in ts w ith re sp ec t 

to co nf or m ing th e la nguage of Se cti on 601 to th a t of Se ction 600.

T H E BIL L

Se cti on 1 of H.R. 2920 wou ld am en d Se ction 601 of T it le 18 by st ri kin g th ere ­

fr om i ts p re se nt l an gua ge whi ch li m its its scop e to “ appro pri ati ng funds fo r wor k 

re li ef or re li ef pu rp os es ,” an d wo uld al so ad d th e w or ds “in wh ole o r in p a rt” 

in de fin ing th e ex te n t to w hi ch th e be ne fits ne ed be m ad e po ssible by an Act of 

Co ng res s. The se ch an ge s a re co ns is te nt w ith th e la ngu ag e of Se cti on 600, th e 

counte rp art to Se ction 601, and se rv e to clo se a fo rm id ab le loo phole ex is ti ng in 

th e pr es en t fe de ra l law.

B ot h sections 600 an d 601 serv e si m il ar p u rp o ses: to pr ote ct th e in te gri ty 

of fe de ra lly- fu nd ed em pl oy m en t an d pro gra m s by pro hib itin g an yo ne fr om 

pr om isin g or de pr iv in g a pe rs on of a fe der al be ne fit on th e ba sis of th e be ne ­

fici ar y’s po lit ic al ac tivit y. Se cti on 600 se rv es th is ob ject iv e by m ak in g it an 

off ense to prom ise a be ne fit , prov id ed fo r or m ad e po ssible in who le or in p a rt 

by an y Act of Co ng res s, on ac co un t of po litica l ac tivity. Se cti on 601 pro hib it s 

th e de pr iv at io n of be ne fit s on th e bas is of po litica l ac tivity, but in our view is 

un ne ce ss ar ily an d in ex pl ic ab ly lim ited to be ne fit s pr ov id ed fo r or mad e po ss ible 

by an y Act of Co ng ress appro pri ati ng fu nds fo r wor k re li ef or re lief pu rp os es . 

Thi s lim itat io n to fe dera ll y ap pro pri ate d “r eli ef” be ne fit s ope ra te s as a bar 

to pros ec ution in ca se s w her e no n- w elfa re be ne fits, whi ch ha ve alr ea dy been 

gra nte d to a be ne fic iary , are ta ken aw ay from him be ca us e of som e fo rm of
34

political consideration. This result, we feel, frustrates the basic purpose which 

sections 601 and 600 both serve.

A case involving non-welfare benefits has recently been investigated by the 

Department of Justice, but was subsequently closed in part because of this 

deficiency in Section 601. Allegations were made that patronage employees 

engaged in non-policy formulation duties were expected to contribute two percent of their salaries to the political par ty whose elected representative controlled the executive department in which their positions were located, and 

tha t this system generated approximately $10,000 per month in contributions. A 

number of positions subjected to this kick-back system were paid in pa rt from 

federal funds, among them the highway program which employed more than 

70% of the state's 7,200 patronage positions. The facts of this case did not fall 

within tlie purview of Section 600. since the evidence failed to show tha t an 

applicant was required to engage in political activity as a condition precedent 

to either a promise of employment or appointment. Since the political activity 

was not required until after the appointment, this matte r did not fall within r

Section 600. It fell exclusively under Section 601. However, the matter could not 

be considered as a potential violation of tha t section since these appropriations 

were from the Department of Transportation, and therefore were not for 

“work relief or relief purposes.”

Clearly, a prosecution of this matter under Section 601 would have furthered »

the general policy of Sections 600 and 601 if fur ther investigation had confirmed 

the allegation that these state employees were dismissed, or not promoted, for 

a failure to make political contributions. The proposed amendment to section 

601 would remedy this problem and the Department of Justice is therefore in 

favor of the enactment of this legislation.

The changes brought about by Section 1 of H.R. 2920 will have the effect of 

expanding the reach of the federal government into areas from which it is now 

foreclosed. We believe, however, tha t the United States has an obligation to 

insure that none of its appropriations is used as a means of extorting political 

favors. In addition, when abuses of this nature arise, they are often locally 

sanctioned or institutionalized so tha t federal intervention is often the only 

means of halting a continuing practice. Of course, the enactment of this bill 

ought not to be construed as pre-empting the prosecutive vehicles which are 

presently available for particularly aggravated cases of this sort, for example 

the Hobbs Act and 18 U.S.C. 371.

It should be noted additionally that H.R. 2920, although apparently directed 

at discriminations in employment based upon political activity, would also 

affect and enlarge the scope of the “race, creed [and] color” language of 

amended section 601. As such it would prohibit the deprivation of benefits 

provided for or made possible in whole or in par t by an Act of Congress, on 

account of race, creed, or color, as well as on the basis of political activity.

The inclusion of race, creed, and color discrimination within this section furthers 

a legislative intent wliih is reflected in the basic civil rights sta tutes; in addition, it covers the situation where a person is deprived of a federal benefit on 

account of race, creed, or color, but there is no showing of a conspiracy, action 

under color of any law, or force, as is required respectively under Title 18 

sections 241, 242, and 245(a) (E ). Such a circumstance would present itself, 

for example, where a contractor receiving federal funds either directly from 

the federal government or through the state government, dismisses an employee *

on account of his race, creed, or color. Section 601, as amended by H.R. 2920, 

would therefore fill a gap which exists in the present civil rights laws.

Section 2 of H.R. 2920 would amend sections 600 and 601 of Title 18 by increasing their penalties from $1000 to $25,000. Tlie present one year maximum 

term of incarceration would be retained under the proposed amendment. The w

Department favors this proposed revision, which would bring the violations of 

these sections into line with the penalty for violations of the majority of the 

misdemeanor statutes contained in chapter 29 of Title 18, as amended by tlie 

Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974.

ADD ITIONAL POINTS

I would like to comment upon certain problems arising under section 601 which 

are not confronted by H.R. 2920.

Section 601 prohibits the deprivation of federal benefits on account of political 

activity, “except as required by law.” The apparent purpose of this phrase is to
cover the situatio n where a federal or sta te employee is dismissed for engag ing 

in political activity in violation of the Hatch Act, or a sim ilar sta te statu te. This 

exception, as so i nterpreted, is entirely reasonable and appropriate.

However, the phrase is su bject to the c onstruction tha t, if a sta te or municipa l­ ity were to enact a statute or ordinance pur portin g to legalize a system of required payments to a p olitical p arty as a condition of employment, the conduct of depriving a person of employment for failure to comply with the local law, with 

respect to jobs made possible in whole or in par t by an Act of Congress, would not 

violate section 601. AVe do n ot believe such a res ult to be desirable or intended by 

Congress. Therefore, we sugg est th at the Subcommittee give consideration either to rewritin g the exception in a narrow er and more precise fashion, or to making 

cle ar through the legislative history of this bill t ha t th e aforeme ntioned exception 

is not intended to permit such an absurd loophole. The Departm ent also recommends an expansion of the types of benefits which 

may not be deprived under Section 601, so as to include “contract” and “app ointmen t.” “Con tract” and “appo intment” are benefits which often flow from a fed­ eral appropriation , and clearly should not be denied on the basis of political activity, race, creed, or color. The express inclusion of these benefits would have 

the effect of bringing the scope of benefits described under section 600, as amended 

by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Finally, the Departme nt recommends th at any exis ting ambiguities or inconsistencies between the m eaning of the te rm “election” as it is used in section 601 and its sister statute, sectio n 600. be removed. Presently , the definition of “election” which is contained in 18 U.S.C. 5 91(a) applies to section 600, but does not apply to section 601. Moreover, as defined in section 591(a ), the concept of “election” clearly reaches any sort of elective conte xt, be it a general election, a pr i­ mary, a special election, a convention or a political nom inating caucus. By 

amending the prefato ry clau se to 18 U.S.C. 591 to include section 601, not only 

would the scope of the two relate d sections be identical as to the sort of political 

activity which they reach, bu t in addition any a rgument which could conceivably 

be made that the bare term “election” presently employed in section 601 does not 

include every type of contest, would be obviated.

TESTIMONY OF ROGER PAULEY, DEPUTY CHIEF, LEGISLATION

AND SPECIAL PROJECTS SECTION, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ACCOMPANIED BY FRANK ALLEN, DEPUTY

CHIEF, CRIMINAL SECTION, C IVIL RIGHTS DIVISION. AND CRAIG

DONSANTO, ATTORNEY, FRAUD SECTION, CRIMINA L DIVISION

Mr. Pauley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On my right is Mr. Fr ank 

Allen, Deputy Chief in the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division. On my left is Mr. Craig Donsanto, attorney in the Frau d Section of the Criminal Division which is the section t hat has enforcement responsibility for the statutes under consideration today.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased 

to appear today to testify concerning the Departmen t’s views on If.R . 

2920, a bill to amend sections 600 and 601 of title 18 of the United 

States Code, relating to the gran ting or deprivation of benefits provided for or made possible by an act of Congress, on the basis of political activity, and for other purposes. I believe you have the Department’s comments which are contained in our letter to Chairman 

Rodino, stating our basic position in favor of the bill.

Mr. H u xgate. Yes. And without objection we will make tha t a p art 

of the record.

Mr. Pauley. Thank you.

[The letter referred to follows:]
36

D ep artm en t of J ust ic e,

Washington, D.C., September 2'f, 1915.

li on. P eter W . Rodino. Jr .,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Ch a ir m a n: T his is in resp on se to yo ur re qu es t fo r th e vie ws of 

th e D ep ar tm en t of Ju st ic e on II. K. 2920, a hil l “T o am en d sections 000 an d 001 

of T itle IS, Un ite d S ta te s Code, re la ti ng to th e gra nti ng o r de pr iv at io n of 

be ne fit s prov ided fo r or m ad e po ssible by an y Act of Co ng res s, on th e ba sis of 

po litica l ac tivi ty , a nd fo r oth er pur pos es ”.

II .R . 2920 wo uld ac co mplish tw o go als :

F ir st , it wo uld close a fo rm id ab le an d inex pl icab le loo ph ole wh ich pr es en tly 

exis ts in th e Fed er al C rim in al Code in si tu ati ons whe re F ed er al benefits, mad e 

lM)ssible by th e Co ngres s, a re w ithdra w n by st ate or loc al auth ori ti es on th e 

ba si s of po litica l ac tivi ty of th e reci pi en t. Pre se nt ly , IS U.S.C. 000 reac he s sit u a ­

tion s whe re such be nefits are gra nte d on th e ba sis of po lit ic al ac tivity. Ho we ver, 

th e co mplem en tary se ction dea ling w ith th e de nial of be ne fits al re ad y gr an te d, 

18 U.S.C. 001. is pre se nt ly co nfined in it s sco pe only to th e po lit ically re la te d 

dep ri va tion of fe de ra lly appro pri ate d "r eli ef’’ benefits. Thu s, in view of th e 

str ic t ru le s of st atu to ry co nst ru ct io n wh ich go ve rn whe re cr im in al st atu te s are 

inv olve d, we do no t fee l th a t we could ap pl y eit her of th es e tw o sections to 

si tu ati ons whe re no n- w el fa re be ne fit s are de nied an in div id ual be ca us e of som e 

fo rm of po lit ic al ac tivity, fo r su ch si tu ati ons wo uld be go ve rn ed ex clu siv ely by 

18 U.S.C. 001, wh ich is lim ited in sco pe to re lief benefits. As a re su lt, we ar e 

fo rced in to an un te nab le pos itio n of eit her pr os ec ut in g su ch tr an sa ct io ns un de r 

th e ge ne ra l Fed er al co ns pi ra cy st atu te , 18 U.S.C. 371 (w hi ch is freq ue nt ly difficult or im possible , es pe cially w her e a co urse of co nd uc t is no t so ex tens iv e as 

to corr upt th e adm in is tr ati on of an enti re Fed er al pro gra m ), or attem pting to 

es ta bl is h w he th er or no t politica l ac tivity was re qu ired as a co nd iti on pr ec ed en t 

to th e gra nti ng of some F edera l benefit.

As a ve hic le fo r re m ed ying th is loophole, II.R . 2920 is sa ti sf ac to ry . Se cti on 1 o f 

th is bill wo uld sim ply am en d I S U.S.C . 601 by ex pa nd in g it s sco pe to all go ve rn ­

m en t benefits. T his se ction wou ld also ad d th e words “in wh ole or in p a rt ’’ to th e 

te x t of secti on 601, th us m ak in g its sco pe vir tu all y id en tica l to th a t of 18 U.S.C. 

600 and elim in atin g an y am bi gui ty as to th e in te nt io n o f Con gress th a t th es e two 

co mpl em en tary sections sho ul d be id en tica l in t heir scope.

Se condly, th e proposed le gi sl at io n wo uld am en d both 18 U.S.C. 600 an d 601 by 

ra is in g th e max im um fines fo r vio la tion s from $1,000 to $25,000. The pr es en t one 

y ear te rm o f im pr ison men t it le ft un ch an ge d. Thi s revi sion wo uld br in g viol atio ns 

of se ct io ns 600 an d 601 in to line with th e pen al ties fo r vio la tion s of th e m aj ori ty 

of th e misd em ea no r st atu te s co nt ai ne d in C hap te r 29 of T it le 18, United Sta te s 

Code as a men de d by Pu bl ic L aw 93-4 43.

T he D ep ar tm en t of Ju st ic e reco mmen ds th a t II.R . 2920 la* e na cted .

The Office of M an ag em en t and Bud ge t has ad vi se d th a t th ere is no ob jec tio n to 

th e sub miss ion of th is rep or t from th e st an dpoin t of the A dm in is tr at io n's p rogr am . 

Sinc erely ,

Mic ha el M. U iii .m an n.

Mr. P auley. My remarks today will expand upon this basic position 

as well as develop a few additional points with respect to conforming 

the language of section 601 to that of section 600.

Section 1 of II.R. 2920 would amend section 601 of title 18 by striking therefrom its present language which limits its scope to “appropriating funds for work relief or relief purposes,” and would also add the 

words “in whole or pa rt” in defining the extent to which the benefits 

need be made possible by an act of Congress. These changes are consistent with the language of section 600, the counterpart of section 601, 

and serve to close a formidable loophole existing in the present Federal 

law.

Both sections 600 and 601 serve similar purposes: to protect the integrity of federally funded employment and programs by prohibiting 

anyone from promising or depriving a person of a Federal benefit on 

the basis of the beneficiary’s political activity. Section 600 serves this
37

objective by making it an offense to promise a benefit, provided for or 

made possible in whole or in par t by any act of Congress, on account of political activity. Section 601 prohibits the deprivation of benefits on the basis of political activity, but in our view is unnecessarily and in­ explicably limited to benefits provided for or made possible by any act of Congress app ropriating funds for work relief or relief purposes. This limitation to federally appropriated “relief” benefits operates as a bar to prosecution in cases where nonwelfare benefits, which have already been granted to a beneficiary, are taken away from him because of some form of political consideration. Th is result, we feel, frustrates 

the basic purpose which sections 601 and 600 both serve. A case involving nonwelfare benefits has recently been investigated by the Department of Justice, but was subsequently closed, in part because of this deficiency in section 601. Allegations were made th at patronage employees engaged in nonpolicy formulation duties were expected to contribute 2 percent of their salaries to the political party whose elected representative controlled the executive departm ent in which their positions were located, and that this system generated approximately $10,000 per month in contributions. A number of posi­ tions subjected to this kickback system were paid in part from Fed­ eral funds, among them the highway program which employed more than 70 percent of the State’s 7,200 patronage positions. The facts of this case did not fall within the purview of section 600, since the evi­ dence failed to show that an applicant was required to engage in politi­ cal activity as a condition precedent to either a promise of employment or appointment. Since the political activity was not required until afte r the appointment, this matter did not fall within section 600. I t fell exclusively under section 601. However, the matter could not be considered as a potential violation of that section since these appropri­ ations were from the Department of Tran sportation, and therefore 

were not for “work relief or relief purposes." Clearly, a prosecution of this matter under section 601 would have furthered the general policy of sections 600 and 601 if further investi­ gation had confirmed the allegation that these State employees were dismissed, or not promoted, for a failure to make political contribu­ tions. The proposed amendment to section 601 would remedy this prob­ lem and the Department of Justice is therefore in favor of the enactment of t his legislation. The changes brought about bv section 1 of H.R. 2920 will have the effect of expanding the reach of the Federal Government into areas from which it is now foreclosed. We believe, however, that the United States has an obligation to insure that none of its appropriations is used as a means of discrim inating on the basis of political activity. Tn addition, when abuses of this nature arise, they are often locally sanc­ tioned or institutionalized so that Federal intervention is often the only means of haltin g a continuing practice. Of course, the enactment of this bill ought not to be construed as preempting the prosecutive vehicles which are presently available for particularly aggravated 

cases of this sort, for example the Hobl>s Act. It should be noted additionally that H.R. 2920. although apparently directed at discriminations in employment based upon political activ­ ity, would also affect and enlarge the scope of the “race, creed, and 

color” language, of amended section 601.
38

As such, it would prohibit the deprivation of benefits provided for 

or made possible in whole or in part by an act of Congress, on account 

of race, creed, or color, as well as on the basis of political activity. The 

inclusion of race, creed, and color discrimination within this section 

furthers a legislative intent which is reflected in the basic civil rights 

statutes; in addition, it covers the situation where a person is deprived 

of a Federal benefit on account of race, creed, or color, but there is 

no showing of a conspiracy, action under color of any law, or force, 

as is required respectively under title 18, sections 241, 242, and 245(b) 

(1) (E ). Such a circumstance would present itself, for example, where 

a contractor receiving Federal funds either directly from the Federal 

Government or through the State government, dismisses an employee 

on account of his race, creed, or color. Section 601, as amended by 

H.R. 2920, would therefore fill a gap which exists in the present civil 

righ ts laws.

Section 2 of H.R. 2920 would amend sections 600 and 601 of title 

18 by increasing their penalties from $1,000 to $25,000. The present 

1-year maximum term of incarceration would be retained under the 

proposed amendment. The Department favors this proposed revision, 

which would bring the violations of the majority of the misdemeanor 

statutes contained in chapter 29 of title 18, as amended by the Federal 

Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974.

I would like to comment upon certain problems arising under section 

601 which are not confronted by H.R. 2920.

Section 601 prohibits the deprivation of Federal benefits on account 

of political activity, “except as required by law.” The apparent purpose of this phrase is to cover the situation where a Federal or State 

employee is dismissed for engaging in political activity in violation 

of the Hatch Act, or a similar State statute. This exception, as so 

interpreted, is entirely reasonable and appropriate.

However, the phrase is subject to the construction that, if a State 

or municipality were to enact a statute or ordinance purportin g to 

legalize a system of required payments to a political party as a condition of employment, the conduct of depriving a person of employment 

for failure to comply with the local law. with respect to jobs made 

possible in whole or in part bv an act of Congress, would not violate 

section 601. We do not believe such a result to be desirable or intended 

by Congress. Therefore, we suggest that the subcommittee give consideration either to rewriting the exception in a narrower and more precise 

fashion, or to making clear through the legislative history of this bill 

that the aforementioned exception is not intended to permit such an 

absurd loophole.

The Department also recommends an expansion of the types of benefits which may not be deprived under section 601, so as to include 

“contract” and “appointment.” These are benefits which often flow 

from a Federal appropriation , and clearly should not be denied on 

the basis of political activity, race, creed, or color. Th e express inclusion of these benefits would have the effect of bring ing the scope of 

benefits described under section and 601 in line with the scone of benefits described in section 600, as amended by the Federal Election 

Campaign Act of 1971.

Fina lly, the Department recommends that any existing ambiquities 

or inconsistencies between the meaning of the term “election” as it is
39

used in section 601 and its sister statute section 600, be removed. Presently, the definition of “election” which is contained in 18 U.S.C. 591(a) applies to section 600, but does not apply to section 601. More­ over, as defined in section 591(a), the concept of “election’ clearly reaches any sort of elective context, be it a general election, a pr i­ mary, a special election, a convention or a political nominating caucus. By amending the prefato ry clause to 18 U.S.C. 591 to include section 601, not only would the scope of the two related sections be identical as to the sort of political activity which they reach, but in addition any argument which could conceivably be made tha t the bare term “election” presently employed in section 601 does not include every 

typo of contest, would be obviated. Air. Chairman, that concludes my prepared testimony and I and my colleagues would be ha ppy to answer any questions a t this time.

Mr. Hungate. Thank you, Air. Pauley. We appreciate your work 

on this bill and we welcome you here again. We recall your contribu­ tions to the work of this subcommittee over the years, in particular 

your work on the evidence code.

Air. Russo is recognized for 5 minutes. Air. Russo. Than k you, Air. Chairman. I would also like to thank Air. Pauley for his usual excellent job of the analysis of the bill before us. I think it points out some of the shortcomings tha t we ought to 

clear up and I would jus t like to ask a question. I notice in some of the cases that you discussed on page 2—I won­ der if there are other violations of other laws tha t were committed by those actions taken by these various people th at are not violations of section 601 ? Is there any other law tha t could have been prosecuted under the Federal statute? For example, “The Two Percent Club" in Indiana. Other than tak ing it under section 601, is there any other 

Federal violation tha t you are aware of—Federal prosecutor?

Air. Pauley. Not necessarily. I would like—this isn’t perhaps directly responsive but I would like to make the point tha t we do not view this statute, although tha t may have been its motivation, as necessarily directed at the Indiana patronage system. In fact, it does not necessarily follow i f II.R. 2920 is enacted that the In diana patro n­ age system would be found to violate the amended section 601. There is nothing illegal or th at would be made illegal under 601 simply through requesting contributions to a political party from persons holding jobs in whole or in part funded by an act of Congress. We would have to show th at there was implicit in the system itself some threat of deprivation of employment or the fact of deprivation of 

employment.

Air. Hungate. Would the gentleman yield briefly?

Air. Russo. Sure.

Air. H ungate. You have heard some of the letters that were read by 

Air. Roush. Would they allege violations of section 601 as II.R. 2920 

would amend it?

Air. Pauley. Some of the complaints that Air. Roush read into the record would seem on the ir face to constitute violations of section 601 as it would be amended and in one or more instances, if my recol­ lection is correct, of section 600 as it exists now. I can only say on behalf of the Department tha t neither we nor the F B I has received any notice of such complaints. I f we were to receive such notice they would 

be appropriately investigated.
40

Mr. Russo. Well, let me just read you this letter:

AVe un de rstand you are behind with your paym ents to the Pa rty . Ou r un de rsta nd ing is 2 pe rcent for Sta te a nd 1 i>ercent for C ounty of sal ary .

W ill you ple ase ta ke ca re of this m at te r at once and pay your 2 percent to 

Sta te and 1 i»ercent to ou r County Tr ea su rer, Mr. I) . Ja ck Maliuro n, F ar m er ’s 

Citizen's Ba nk in Salem.

1 think that is what it says.

When you signed up for the job th at was th e agr eeme nt acc ord ing to ou r 

un de rstand ing as it is a political job, and we will he look ing forw ard to yo ur 

■cooperation in th is m at te r by kee ping yo ur paym ents uieto-d ate.

As amended, would section 601 cover that ?

Mr. P auley. I th ink it would be a close question. T think again one 

would have to show that in that letter there was the implicit threat 

of a deprivation of some benefit of appointment.

Mr. Russo. Assume that after this letter was sent out. the gentleman 

was not current, and that he was fired, how would you view it then?

Mr. Pauley. T would think it would be then at least a prima facie 

violation of 601 as II.R. 2920 would amend it, assuming, of course, 

that we are talkin g about a federally funded job.

Mr. Russo. Well, obviously you see the p oint T am trying to reach. 

Ts there a way that the Justice Department feels it can tighten up 601 

a little more so tha t there wouldn’t l)e this problem, that you wouldn't 

have that much difficulty? You can think about it. I am not asking 

you------

Mr. P auley. It is an evidence question. The statute perhaps would 

reach an attempt as well or a conspiracy, some inchoate form of conduct. I am not sure one can go much beyond that in attem pting to 

proscribe the conduct without putting a chilling effect on the legitimate practice perhaps of soliciting a contribution or of simply asking 

employees to consider whether they would like to contribute to a 

political party.

Mr. Russo [continuing]. Let me just ask you one other question. 

Assuming that the State attorney general is not fulfilling his obligation in carrying out the necessary functions of his office and prosecuting blatant violations of the law, is there any wav that the Federal 

Government can step in and take over that prosecution?

Mr. Pauley. Under existing laws I do not believe so.

Mr. Russo, I have no further questions.

Mr. Hunoate. Thank you.

Mr. Hyde.

Mr. Hyde. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Well, Mr. Pauley, you heard the question that I asked Mr. Roush. 

1 wonder what your comment is on it. It just seems to me th at if this 

becomes law I no longer have anything to say about mv ad ministrative assistant's political activities, and if he goes and works for my 

opponent, he will get a cost-of-living increase.

Mr. P auley. I think that does raise a valid point. I know that the 

Department of Justice has always viewed these statutes, because of 

the context in which they were enacted as part of the Hatch Act, as 

basically not intended to reach positions tha t could be considered in 

Mr. Hungate’s phrase as policymaking roles. I think that position 

should be reaffirmed or clarified in the statutes, perhaps through the 

legislative history, or in the committee's discretion, through actual
41

language in the bill. And we would be pleased to work with the 

subcommittee in that respect.

Mr. Hyde. Policymaking is w hat we are looking at but really and 

truly it goes beyond tha t because, for instance, my administrative 

assistant doesn't make policy. He implements the policy.

Mr. II ungate. He doesn't make it if you catch him.

Mr. II yde. Well, tha t's righ t. And he doesn't implement it unless 

I say so. But, I think we have to look at tha t very carefully. So, as I 

say, we don’t create more problems than we really want to solve.

Now, secondly, 1 have seen situations where to get into a Federal 

aid program, vocational train ing, even to get considered for these 

jobs, you have to get a letter from your ward committeeman. I don't 

think section (500 covers th at and I don't think 001 covers that. What 

is your view ?

Mr. Pauley. I am not sure that 600 doesn't cover it. Again, it 

would be a proof problem of showing tha t the political activity of 

some soil, tha t is, obtaining the letter, was required as a condition 

precedent to the obtaining of the employment, but i f th at evidentiary 

hurdle could be surmounted, I don’ see why 600 would not reach that.

Mr. Russo. Would the gentleman yield ?

Mr. Hyde. Yes.

Mr. Russo. Assuming the letter was a letter of recommendation 

which is probably how it is handled—I recommend Henry Hyde for 

a position of such and such; I think he is a very qualified individual— 

I don't see how 600 would cover something like that.

Mr. H yde. I agree with you and I don't think i t does. I don't think 

tha t is how it is done. I f you want to get a guard job, a job as a crossing guard, or some menial job that is politically administered, you 

darn well better get a letter from some politician and it is a letter of 

recommendation. I find, you know, the bearer of this a very fine, upstand ing citizen, but it is a condition precedent to him being interviewed for the job.

Mr. 1 ’auley. If I could speak to that for a moment, T think as in 

most antidiscrimination statutes, what you really have to show to make 

out a prosecution is a pattern of conduct. I f you could establish a p attern in which such letters were issued only to the pally faithful, for 

example, then you may well be able to show this was not merely a case 

of an independently sought recommendation from a particular body 

but was a p art of this kind of discriminatory p attern. You could make 

out a case under 600.

Mr. H yde. Right. It is usually done to develop an obligation where 

none existed before. Don't forget where you got this job, Charlie. Look 

what we have done for you. I expect your loyalty come the next election. It is a very intangible area, and would be tough to legislate in. 

It just gripes me to have Federal programs set up to help a group of 

people who desperately need it but they have to go throu gh the political sieve to get some of the tax money that is being expended. I think 

it is wrong. I am not sure the statutes will cover it and I will do some 

more thinking on th at myself and I would appreciate your thinking 

about it.

Mr. Pauley. I will be glad to.

Mr. Hyde. Thank you. I yield back.
42

Mr. Hungate. I guess I am hung up on these letters. I recognize 

tha t soliciting might be p rope r but threats are not. I recognize t hat 

soliciting has different meanings, too. Take, for example, the 1971 letter tha t Mr. Roush read.

Patronage payments are due on Monday after pay on Friday. Payments not 

made by Tuesday noon mean automatic dismissal.

I think tha t letter would be a rath er firm solicitation, or a little more 

than that, wouldn’t it ?

Air. Pauley. Very possibly. Mr. Donsanto could perhaps address 

himself to that.

Mr. Donsanto. Thank you. I f we received a letter such as that—may 

I make it clear to the committee we have not. <*

Mr. Hungate. We don’t suggest you have.

Mr. Donsanto. The fact tha t the individual already had the job,

I assume that this man had a job and let’s assume furt her tha t his job

was in whole or in part funded by an act of Congress. Under those *

circumstances, since he had the employment and the threat which does

seem to be in the letter you have read to me, the situation would be

governed by section 601.

Mr. I Iungate. I guess my first problem is the definition of solicitation. If the letter is merely solicitation, then whatever job he has m atters not.

Mr. Donsanto. It is a threat.

Mr. Hyde. Would the chairman yield ?

Don’t we ail have a duty to hand you that letter, th at we here have 

knowledge of a possible Federal crime and we have a copy of tha t 

letter. Mr. Roush has a duty to hand tha t to you and instigate 

prosecution.

Mr. Donsanto. We can suggest that avenue be pursued or the complainant go to his local agency of the FB I.

Mr. Hyde. I am just wondering about my responsibility, having 

listened to you and Mr. Pauley, tha t a probable Federal crime has 

been committed and I have copy of that letter.

Mr. P auley. Under 601 as it reads now it would not be a violation.

Mr. Hungate. There are gray areas in this law now th at we may 

be able to throw some light on. The letter we are talk ing about has 

a date of 1971, and tha t predates In diana’s new law. But the issue I am 

try ing to focus on is the definition of solicit. I don’t know th at any of 

us want to make it illegal if somebody wants to ask an employee in 1

a very meek and friendly and harmless way to contribute to the political party. It seems to me th at this 1971 letter is considerably more, 

and I think we could develop some legislative history on the difference between a threat or a clearly implied thr eat and a friendly 

solicitation. Take the February 22, 1974, letter. Let’s assume you get 

this letter, and le t’s not w orry whether you are getting Federal funds 

or what you arc doing.

The only question is whether you are going to consider this a nice 

solicitation or thre at :

It is not fai r for your fellow workmen to pay his share and you letting it go 

this way. I am warning you to “shape up or ship out.” This must be paid in full by 

March 11, 1974, or I will be in the process of making out 104’s which means 

letting you go.
43

Is that a solicitation ?

Mr. Pauley. If it is tha t clearly spelled out, it would be a thre at 

of deprivation of employment.

Mr. H ungate. Thank you. I may scare easier than you fellows do. 

The Justice Department thinks that this proposed legislation is appropriate because at the present time the limitations as to work relief or relief funds sort of hamper accomplishing the goals of these two 

sections. Is that generally true ?

Mr. Pauley. That is correct.

Mr. Hungate. Then, eliminating that limitation would seem to help 

the overall purpose of the law.

Mr. Pauley. Yes. The statute was drafted with that limitation to 

* deal with a specific problem in the late 1930’s, but the reason for the

limitation has since vanished.

Mr. II ungate. I understand that the Justice Department supports 

making the penalties uniform, raising the fine $1,000 to $25,000.

4 Mr. Pauley. That is correct.

Mr. Hungate. You really have no trouble with tha t part of the 

proposed legislation.

Mr. Pauley. Th at is correct.

Mr. H ungate. I thin k there is a bill that amends part of the Hatch 

Act coming up on the floor, so the subcommittee will want to w ait and 

see what becomes of that bill. I thin k i t is scheduled this week. You have suggested tha t perhaps a State or municipality might 

legalize or purpo rt to legalize firing employees who fail to make political contributions. You would recommend, in effect, th at we make it clear th at the legislation isn’t intended to permit a State or municipality to legalize tha t sort of conduct.

Air. Pauley. Th at is correct. And I would add t ha t here reference 

to the legislative history is illuminating because when the statu te was 

first enacted as part of their Hatch Act in 1939 it read except as re­ quired by section 9(b) of th is act, which was the section of the Hatc h 

Act which required the dismissal of persons who took part in political 

activity in violation of its prohibitions. When the 1948 revision of the 

entire Federal Penal Code took place, for some reason the re visors saw fit to substitute the apparently much broader phrase, “except as required by law” for the “except as required by section 9(b ),” but I don’t 

think there was any basic substantive change intended. It is jus t th at the language used may have been inappropriate and I think the comt mittee could do a service by giving consideration as to how it can be

tightened up to its originally intended form.

Air. Hungate. We discussed earlier discrimination based on race, 

creed, color, or political affiliation. What would you thin k if we put 

» a prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex in there too ?

Air. P auley. From our standpoint I don’t think we would have any 

objection. It would be a decision of the subcommittee. I agree with Air. 

Roush th at it does address problems quite d istinct perhaps from-----

Air. Hungate. Ju st sort of in tune with the times, it seems now th at 

we used race, creed-----

Air. Pauley [continuing]. I would ask Air. Allen from the Civil 

Rights Division.

Air. Hungate [continuing]. Yes, Air. Allen.
44

Mr. Allen. W ell, as Mr. Pauley said, I do n't th in k we would have 

any objection to it. 1 t hin k that discri mi natio n on the basis of sex is 

go ing to be continued to be add ressed principa lly in Fe deral law by 

yo ur 1964 Civ il Fig hts A ct wh ich pro vides for civil acti ons but I think 

put ting i t in here ce rta inly is, as you said , in tun e wi th the time s and 

we have no objections to it.

Mr. II ungate. T ha nk you. You pointed out th at the re seems to be a 

va ria nce between sections 600 and 601 and th at the y both should read 

th e same. Can you en lig hten me on th at ?

Mr. P alle y. The di sp ar ity is th at the term “election ” in section 601 

is no t a defined ter m whereas the term “ele ctio n” in section 600 is defined because section 59 1(a) reads, “except as oth erw ise specifically 

provide d, when used in th is section and in sections 597, 599, 600”—an d 

then it jum ps to 602 an d a whole bun ch of othe r sections—“ election 

me ans”—an d the n it giv es a very complex definition of the t erm . We 

sim ply t hink t ha t it w ould be usefu l to have the same definition a pp ly 

to section 601, since I perc eive no reason for a difference in scope in t his 

re ga rd between section 600 and section 601.

Mr. I I ungate. When we say election in section 601 it sho uld mean 

the same thing we mean in section 600.

Mr. P auley. Th at is correct.

Mr. H ungate. Tha nk you. Well, of course, an employee in pr iv at e 

business, 1 suppose, ru ns a risk of the boss going brok e and all of the 

jobs being gone, the factory moving to anoth er p art of the cou ntr y or 

to a foreig n coun try , ris ks t hat a re no t g enera lly at te nd an t upon govern me nta l employment. Th ere is usu ally a certa in sec urity in go vernme nta l employment, a nd I don't know whethe r we c an equate losing an 

election to having a firm go broke. I f a m an is in th e pr ivate secto r and 

the business does p oorly, there is no raise or he is out of a job. If he is 

in the gove rnm ent sector, and we can't foresee it go ing o ut of business, 

an d if we are no t go ing to eq uate going ou t of business and losing an 

elec tion, then it will me an th at the employee will not lose his job because his boss is defea ted .

Mr. P auley. A t any rat e, not on th e b asis of the employee’s poli tical 

activ ity .

Mr. II ungate. Yes. H is competence may be reviewed. Tha nk you 

very much , Mr. Pa uley.

An y o the r questions ? M r. Russo.

Mr. Russo. Yes. I was wondering abo ut the que stio n posed by Ms. 

I loltzm an ea rlier when she said crossing a line would be if yo ur immediate sup erv iso r w as s oli cit ing contr ibuti on s f rom you. A nd I am w onde rin g how you feel about section 601, if it were amended, if yo ur 

imme dia te superv iso r as ked you for con tribution.

Mr. P auley. I do n't know th at I wou ld wan t to adopt the pos itio n 

th at fixed any such per se ru le. I agree t ha t th at t yp e o f si tuati on is one 

in which a p erso n w ould be more prone to find an im plicit th re at in the 

solicitation .

Mr. Russo. In othe r words, it wo uldn 't nec essarily have to be in a 

let ter . I ju st walk u p to you and say, Roger, a big p ar ty is co min g up. 

We wa nt $100 from yo u or it wo uld be nice i f you donate d $100. Th ere 

is a way a fellow can s ay it.

Mr. P auley. I t hi nk you pu t y our finge r on it. Solic ita tio n is a wo rd 

th at embraces a gr ea t ma ny nua nces and I th in k it would depend on 

precisely how the solic ita tio n was m ade, by whom it w as made, an d a
45

number of other factors all going to determine whether there was an 

implicit threat. Mr. Russo. I am concerned about tightening up the language so tha t 

we can cover some of these areas.

Mr. Pauley. Well, we will be hapy to consider that. I am not sure 

one can do any better than the word “threat" which is a word tha t is in a number of extortion statutes now and it does pose the problems you raised but they have not been difficulties that Federal prosecutors 

have found insuperable in the past. Mr. Russo. Mr. Chairman, just one more comment.

Mr. Hungate. Yes. Surely. Mr. Russo. On the problem we are talking about putting in the 

» legislative history, that we don’t want the State or the local munic­ ipalities to pass a law that says this was actually legal and therefore circumvent G01. I would he opposed to putting in th e legislative his­ tory for the simple reason yesterday on the floor of the House we had 

< a little problem with the Federal elections law. It was in the legislative history, not in the act per se, that something was to be filed with the Clerk of the House. When it came to the test on the floor it wasn’t the intent of the law that was argued, but what the law itself said. So I think it is im portant if we want to make an exclusion like this that we actually put it in the law, and not in the legislative history, because 

that seems to fall hv the wayside nowadays.

Mr. Hungate. Mr. Smietanka.

Mr. Smietanka. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Mr. Pauley, I am interested in how far the revised 18 U.S.C. G01 would go into the domain of State, county, and city governments. For example, wfill it apply to jobs, benefits, compensation, et cetera, only indirectly related to congressional action, for example, the hiri ng and firing of subordinates by a county sheriff based upon support or lack of support in previous elections, if th at department is a recipient of a grant from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration?

Mr. P auley. I think, and I will defer once again to Mr. Donsanto, 

hut I think that our position would be that some Federal moneys would have to be traced to the particula r job or benefit that was being denied in order for the statute to apply. Otherwise as was pointed out, I think by Mr. Wiggins before he left, it would have a completely pervasive impact which might well be unwarranted in terms of Federal inva­ sion into local spheres. Bu t I will let Mr. Donsanto comment on tha t 

f also.

Mr. Donsanto. I th ink we would have to show under those circumstances, No. 1, tha t there was a fairly sufficient amount of Federal funds involved in the deprivation, and No. 2, that the people who 

» were being dismissed were nonpolicy formulating type people, tha t they were just ministerial functionaries, secretaries, people of th at sort, who under custom had not been part of what ordinarily had been con­ sidered a m erit civil service, as well as that federally funded jobs that were ordinarily protected from political dismissal were being used for 

that purpose on the basis of political activity.

Mr. Smietanka. Pursuing that one step furth er, how considerable 

would the federally traceable funds have to be ?

Mr. Donsanto. That is a prosecutorial sort of judgment which one 

makes on a case-by-case basis. I think—I can’t give you a firm set 

figure.

62-6 63— 76------4
4G

Mr. Smietanka. It is possible, then, tha t one penny of federally 

traceable aid might have the effect of applying 18 U.S.C. 601 to a 

county sheriff’s department.

Mr. Donsanto. I t is feasible. I can’t say it would be well-received in 

a Federal court.

Mr. Smietanka. Thank you very much.

Mr. Hungate. This problem still puzzles me. “Policymaking” has 

a nice ring to it—if we can decide what policymaking means. I am 

attra cted to a simple approach that would protect certain employees 

on the basis of salary level. But there are problems here. Let’s take 

a case of someone in my office who has decided i t would be in the 

public interest to retire me in an election. All he does is file. But at 

the end of the day he simply calls my opponent and says, “On H.R. 34 *

there were e ight people who -wrote in. Hungate voted yes and they 

wanted him to vote no. You might want to talk to those eight people.”

I think t ha t if he does that fo r about a month, even though he is in a 

relatively low salary level, nonpolicy position, I would have a lot of *

trouble.

Yes, Mr. Donsanto.

Mr. Donsanto. That would not necessarily be a termination on the 

basis of political activity as much as it would be on the basis of 

competence, disloyalty. I think there is a distinction between the fact 

tha t in this case your subordinate employees may have chosen to support or to assist one of your opponents in this particular way which 

brings into question not only their political activity but the ir insubordination to you, and th at is quite a separate consideration.

Mr. Hungate. Insubordination. That is an interesting approach.

Mr. Donsanto. There is an interesting confluence, as it were, between political activity and political insubordination, but it is clear 

your motivation of firing them would be basically that of one being 

insubordinate.

Mr. Hungate. Shooting them would be called political slaughter.

Any other questions? Thank you very much Air. Pauley, Air. Allen, 

and Air. Donsanto.

Air. Pauley. Thank you.

Air. Hungate. Our next witness is Air. James F. Marshall, national 

executive director, Assembly of Governmental Employees.

We are glad to have you here Air. Marshall, and we are pleased to 

have your statement. We will make it part of the record at this point, 

without objection. If you would, identify the gentlemen accompany- ’

ing you, and you may proceed as you see fit.

[The prepared statement of James F. Alarshall follows:]

Statem ent of J ames F. Marshall, National E xecutive Director, Assembly *

of Governmental E mployees

Mr. Chairma n and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Jam es F. Marshall,

National Executive Director of the Assembly of Governmental Employees, a 

fede ratio n of 46 independent public employee organizations which together represe nt more than 700,000 public employees in 34 states. We are sincerely ai>- 

preciative of the opportunity to app ear before this Subcommittee concerning 

its delibera tions on HR 2920. We also would like to tak e this opportu nity to 

tha nk Congressman Roush for introdu cing this bill and for his supportive testimony h eard this morning.

The Assembly of Governmental Employees is in favor of the proposed amendments to Sections 600 and 601 of Title 18 of the United States Code as delineated 

in UR 2920. We feel the expansion of the coverage of Section 601 to brin g it to
47

the level of Section COO, and the increased penalties applicable to both sections, will have a desirable deterrent effect on the coercive practices of certain gov­ ernment employees concerning political activities of, or lack thereof, by potential and fellow employees. We also feel tha t the proposed changes will allow Sec­ tions GOO and 001 to have a significant impact on the prohibition of coercive practices as provided for in the Hatch Act, specifically Title 5 U.S.C. Section 1502 (a) (2 ). In a more general sense, we support the amendments as furth erin g the goals of Intergovernmenta l Personnel Act of 1970 Merit Principles Nos. 5 and 6 which will be referre d to late r in this testimony. While we realize th at Section 1502 of Title 5 provides for civil penalties ad­ ministered under the Civil Sendee Commission and Sections GOO and G01 provide for criminal penalties prosecuted by the Department of Justice, thei r pract ical •effects are related in th at they both deal with coercive practices. If there have been problems with the effectiveness of Sections 600 and 601 of Title 18, this may explain partiall y why there have been simila r problems with Section 1502 (a) (2 ) of T itle 5. There have been very few complaints under 15 02 (a) (2 ) which have been successful. This parti ally is due to the fact tha t few employees are willing to admit tha t they were, in fact, subjected to coercion. Prio r to the 1974 amendments, the U.S. Civil Service Commission was able to solve this prob­ lem by proceeding under the old Section 1 5 0 2 (a )( 3 ). Coercing political contri ­ butions was deemed to be “an active part in political . . . campaigns.” Thus, an employee could testify tha t coercive efforts had been made without admitting tha t he, himself, had been coerced. With the change in Section 15 02 (a) (3 ), the Commission was left with the problem outlined above concerning (a )(2 ), but no solution. We feel tha t the problem is compounded by the fact th at the civil penalties provided for in Title 5, Section 1506 are inadequate. Under tha t sec­ tion the Commission is authorized to order the withholding of Federal funds equivalent to two years of the offender’s salary, if the state involved does not follow the Commission’s recommendation for dismissal. In many instances, this “penalty” is outweighed by the gain derived from engaging in the prohibited 

activity. David Minge, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Wyoming, in a 1973 Minnesota Law Review article ,1 2 pointed out tha t in the period between 1957 and 1967 the Commission ordered the withholding of funds in 30% of the cases in which dismissa l was w arranted. As fu rth er evidence of the inadequacies of the legislation, Professo r Minge referre d to proposals which would increase the penalties under Section 1506 to as much as 25 times the offender’s salary (S 3417, 92nd Cong., 2nd Sess., Sec. 16 33 (d) (1 972)) .’ We feel the increase in penalty is more effective i f directed at the offender himself. Thus, under our interpretation of the broad “whoever” language of Sections 600 and 601, any person, whether in a Federally-funded job or not, would be subject to the proposed $25,000 fine, so long as the offense involved a i>osition •depending on Federal money. We feel tha t the practica l effect of the amend­ ments will be to provide a “bigger hole” for the potential coercer to fall into. The resultant deterre nt effect of a workable criminal sanction on coercion under Sections 600 and 601 should vicariously dete r coercion under Section 1 50 2(a) ( 2 ). Thus, while the Commission’s problems of proof may remain, the incidences of 

violations should be reduced. I had the privilege of serving on the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Personnel Policy established in July of 1971, pursuant to the authority of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970. After months of study and deliberation, the Council made several recommendations for extending the six broad merit principles of intergovernm ental policy into stat e a nd local grant-in-aid programs. The Council’s recommendations were reprinted in the January, 1973 Committee Pri nt “More Effective Public Service” by the Senate Subcommittee on Inter ­ governmental Relations. In the context of these hearings, we favor IIR 2920 on the additional grounds that it furthers the goals of the IPA Merit Principles Nos. 5 and 6 as set fo rth in the Council’s re po rt: (Principle 5) “Assuring fa ir treatment of applications and employees in all respects of personnel admin istration without regard to political

affiliation, race, color, national origin, sex or religious creed and with proper regard for thei r privacy and constitutional rights as citizens.” (emphasis 

added)

1

 Minge, “Federal Restriction s on th e Political Activities of State and Local Employees,” 57 Minnesota L. Rev. 493, 525 (1973).

2 Id. a t 528.
4S

(P ri ncip le 6) “A ssur in g th a t em ploy ee s are pro te ct ed again st coerc ion 

fo r p art is an po litica l pu rp os es and a re pr oh ib ited from us ing th eir official 

auth ori ty fo r th e pu rp os e of in te rf eri n g w ith or affe ctin g th e re su lt of an 

elec tio n o r a no min atio n fo r office.”

U nd er th e co mm en ts to Pri nc ip le No. 5, th e Ad visory Com mitt ee st ate d th at 

“ (a )n y de vi at io n from th e c ri te ri a of ability an d will ingn es s is in co ns iste nt wi th 

th e co nc ep ts of a fr ee an d dem oc ra tic so ci et y. ” We fee l th a t dis cr im in at io n in 

em ploy men t ba se d on po litica l acti vit ie s is an im pe rm issibl e de via tion wh ich 

sh ou ld in cur he av y co nseq ue nc es such as th e $25,000 prop osed pe na lty. The Council ag re es w ith ou r po sit ion as is in dic at ed in its co mmen ts und er Pri nci ple No. 6 

which st ate s “T he Co uncil be lie ve s in a tw o-pron ge d ap pr oa ch to ass u ri n g po lit ­

ical nonpart is ansh ip in th e co nd uc t of pu blic bu sine ss, ft fa vors p enalt ie s agai nst 

th os e wh o wou ld co erce pu blic em ploy ee s fo r p art is an pol itic al purp ose s; it also 

fa vors pe nal ties fo r thos e em ploy ees wh o use th eir official au th o ri ty fo r th e purpo se of in te rf eri ng w ith or affe ctin g th e re su lt of an elec tio n or no m in at io n fo r 

office.”

P olitica l co ercion of pu blic em ploy ee s is re ga rd ed by som e as an cie nt hi stor y, 

lon g sin ce e li m in at ed by th e civi l se rv ic e re gu la tion s. I ass ure t his c om m ittee th a t 

in man y sta te s an d local ju ri sd ic tions, th e prob lem is still a m aj or detr im ent to 

efficient oper at io n of pu blic se rv ices . I co mm end to yo ur att enti on th e testim on y 

of C ha rles F. Eb le, Exe cu tiv e D irec to r of th e In dia na S ta te Em ploy ee s Assoc ia- *

tio n, an af filiate of AGE. Il is te st im on y w ill give you a co m pr eh en sive review of 

th e ty pe s of p ro bl em s fa ce d in In dia na.

We gra te fu ll y th an k th e Su bc om m itt ee fo r th e o pp or tu ni ty to s pe ak an d ass ure 

you th a t th e Asse mbly of G ov er nm en ta l Em ploy ees st ands pre par ed to ass is t an d 

wor k w ith y ou a nd y ou r st af f in any way co nc er ni ng th is leg isla tion .

TESTIMONY OF JAMES F. MARSHALL, NATIONAL EXECU TIVE DIRECTOR, ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT J. McINTOSH, CHIE F COUNSEL, AND GARY

G. ELLSWORTH

Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure and an 

honor to be here before your subcommittee and we appreciate your 

courtesies.

On mv right is our chief counsel, Mr. R. J. McIntosh, from Washington, D.C., and on my left is Mr. Gary Ellsworth, an associate of 

Mr. McIntosh.

The Assembly of Governmental Employees is a federation of independent employees’ organizations across the country. The identification of the organization is well-stated in the written report, so I won’t 

comment further on that other than to say our organizations, philosophically and constitutionally, are committed to the advancement of 

merit system principles. We believe in hiring and retaining public 

employees based on their ability to perform and not their political f(

affiliation.

I would like to say at the outset that our purpose here is to wholeheartedly support the intent of II.R. 2920 and offer to you some comments. I won’t try to repeat much of what has been said. I would like *

to talk with reference to the relationship to the Hatch Act. I would like 

to talk a little bit about the Intergovernmental Personnel Act and comment to Mr. Hyde's and Mr. Wiggins’ question on the policy issue, as 

well as comment on other jurisdictions to indicate to you that this is 

not just an Indiana problem. The Indiana example is an absurd example in our estimation but it is not the only example. I would like to 

show you that it exists across the country.

In the area of the Hatch Act I might say the comment th at you are 

going to have floor debate on the Hatc h Act. that has to do with the
49

Federal Hatch Act. It will not have direct effect on State and local 

government. Tha t was changed in the Campaign Practices Act of 

1974. Many people have said to us that this type of legislation is really 

unnecessary because the Hatch Act takes care of the problem of coercive activities.

Tn our estimation it does not. To begin with, the only dealing tha t 

the Hatch Act—State and local government—has in this regard is on 

an employee who coerces. If a case is followed through and it is found 

tha t an employee is guilty of coercing another employee, tha t employee 

is required—the agency is notified tha t the action warrants dismissal.

Now, if they do not dismiss that employee in 30 days or if they 

bring him back within 18 months, then the U.S. Civil Service Commission, it says in the law, shall direct the granting agency to withhold 

up to the equivalent of 2 years of this man’s salary. That is the penalty, 

which means if you are dealing with a highly paid State or local employee receiving $20,000 a year, you have an outside chance of maybe 

losing $40,000 of a multi-million dollar grant.

Mr. Hungate. You said up to. It wouldn't have to be that.

Mr. Marshall. I'm sorry. 1 think it says equivalent to 2 years. 

So that is the maximum penalty. We don't feel the Hatch Act is adequate, No. 1, because the penalty is inadequate, and No. 2, it only 

deals with public employees who are in violation of the act.

We like very much the sections in 601 and 600 that relate directly 

to lining an individual, whomever tha t individual might be, if he is 

found guilty of a coercive act.

We have in our testimony some comments relating to the success 

ratio of actions taken in this area 'by the U.S. Civil Service 

Commission.

Mr. Hungate. Pardon me. Let me understand. Under the present 

penalty system, when we have a $20,000 employee, the penalty would 

be the forfeiture of the equivalent of 2 years salary. The employee 

wouldn't necessarily lose his salary.

Mr. Marshall. No. lie can stay on the payroll. The penalty is 

assessed only if he stays on the payroll or conies back 18 months after 

the dismissal. It just affects the percentage of the money, the grant, 

and it doesn't affect him. To us that is a very important point because 

the individual doesn't stand to lose and we think tha t should be of 

great concern.

I would also like to comment on the Intergovernmental Personnel 

Act just briefly to relate to you suppo rt for the intent of this legislation. I was fortunate enough to serve on the President’s Advisory 

Council under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act in which we 

evaluated the six basic merit principles that were passed under the 

act. Principle five states, “assuring fai r treatment of applicants and 

employees in all respects of personnel administration without regard 

to political affiliation, race, national origin, sex. or religious creed 

and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights 

as citizens.'’

The. Council added language in the recommendations for implementation of these principles and under principle five we had one 

section tha t I think is very directlv related to this. “Any deviation 

from the criteria of ability and willingness is inconsistent with the 

concepts of a free and democratic society.”
50

I th ink that points out the intent of the President’s Advisory Council on this issue. More to the point is principle six which states, “assuring that employees are protected against coercion, for partisan political purposes, and are prohibited from using their official authority 

for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an 

election or nomination for office.”

The Council added comments to that principle tha t are quoted in our 

publication to this extent:

Th e Co uncil be lie ve s in a tw o-pron ge d ap pr oac h to as su ri ng pol itic al non - 

part is an sh ip in th e co nd uc t of pu blic bu sine ss. I t fa vors pe nal ties again st th os e 

who wou ld co erce p ub lic e mp loy ees fo r p a rt is a n po litica l p urp ose s; it also fa vors 

pe na ltie s fo r th os e em ploy ees wh o us e th eir official auth ori ty fo r th e pu rp os e of 

in te rf eri ng w ith or af fe ctin g th e re su t of an elec tio n or no m in at io n fo r office.

Thus we support going after the individual in violation.

Now, before I get into some other examples th at I think might be of 

interest to the committee, I would like to go to the issue of the exemption element and I do think it is a very valid point. In our operations 

across the country, we have been intimately involved in the development of merit system procedures at all jurisdictional levels. That 

question is a tough one to address in State law and I might suggest to 

the committee that in research for language for exclusion from this 

section of the code, a search of State merit laws as to who is exempt 

might be a worthwhile venture. Some State laws have policy and confidential employees. Some State laws list what categories are to be 

exempt. And certainly there is a percentage which must truly be 

exempt in any m erit activity to allow for the alliance to the platform 

on which the candidate was elected.

The percentage of involvement differs from 1 percent from what 

we call the absurd 27 percent in Indiana. I cannot believe that 7,000 

out of 26,000 employees in Indiana tha t validly are exempt from the 

system is in the public interest. We have a magic code of somewhere 

from 4 to 5 percent which is reasonable. There is one reference I might 

also suggest you look at although we disagree with one section. In 

grant-in aid programs for State and local government, currentlv the 

Civil Service Commission is charged with the responsibility of administering merit standards, and those standards only exist in about 31 of 

the grant-in aid programs, which are listed in the IP A Council report 

to the President. The merit standard has quite a lengthy section under 

jurisdiction of exemption and I commend it to you for consideration. 

It talks about elected heads, about appointed officials, about Commission heads, about one or two confidential assistants to th at Department 

head, tha t type of thing. It does come up with language at the end, 

“and unskilled labo r” which is a very tough term to deal with. Nobody 

considers themselves unskilled labor anymore and job classifications 

don’t identify in that category any more. Therefore, it is almost extinct in usage. We would oppose unskilled labor being p art of the exclusion. Other than that, the jurisdiction sections of th e merit standards do have some suggested language you might want to consider. 

There is no question tha t there should be some.

There are so many hard issues to pin down on where the violations 

are and how valid the violation is and what constitutes the coercion. 

I would dare say as a very broad statement, that of the 78,000 public 

jurisdictions in this country, almost every one of them would, under 

honest investigation, show some coercive practice in some area. We
51

have had experience with many of them across the country and I fair 

to find a place where we are involved, and we are involved in 34 States, 

where some coercive practice does not exist.

Sometimes it is not intended by th e political head of the jurisdiction. Sometimes it crops out of a county official.

Example. In the State of Ohio we had a case in the State highway 

departm ent, in a county at the western edge of Ohio, where the 

assistant superintendent of the S tate highway department brought in 

some employees in tha t highway garage to sit down on State time to 

hear from the county chairman for county politics. Very clearly, they 

were told, and we had testimony to this extent, that if they did not 

pay—it was a small amount, but the principle is the point—they would 

not have a State job.

Now, it was not a State official tha t said that. It was not a supervisor that said that. It was a county chairman who said that.

We have had other examples, such as the flower funds in the county 

sheriffs’ departments. I was interested in your inquiry about that area 

because tha t has been bandied about a long time—where employees 

in the County Sheriff’s Dep artment are expected to put into the flower 

fund, and if they do not, they lose the ir position. They are deputies 

and we have some legal history t ha t you may want to research in the 

State of Ohio on what a “deputy” really is because, a deputy is considered to be pa rt of the exempt category but the role of the “deputy” 

in the sheriff’s department is not termed as deputy for exemption 

purposes.

In the State of Utah there was a solicitation letter submitted from 

the Governor with. I am sure, very honest intent of encouraging activity to get $25 tickets to “a?” banquet and the letter was purely a solicitatio n letter. “We would appreciate your consideration”, and so forth 

and so on. Somewhere along the line somebody created a contest among 

the supervisors and the department subheads as to how many people 

were going to get 100 percent of their employment element involved 

and there was some very strong verbal, coercive practices there.

Our organization there was able to put it to a stop by drawing it to 

the attention of the auditor and other officials got into line but there 

was coercion.

In the State of West Virginia we had an example where five employees of a girls’ school, dorm itory helpers, were solicited for $5 on 

the threat of transfer. When you are making $350, $400 a month, you 

don't pa rticu larly want to get trans ferred from your home.

We had a situation in Ohio, the highway department, where the 

superintendent of the unit took away privileges, very clearly stating 

there would be no advancement. They could not take away the increment increases. We have cases on record—clearly in dicating that you 

will not get advancement i f you d idn't buy a $100 ticket to the dinner.

These are just a few examples to point out to you tha t Indiana is 

not the only place where this happens. We feel this legislation would 

have a great deterrent effect. The mere fact tha t an individual knows 

he might be fined $25,000 and a y ear imprisonment makes him think 

twice, whether he is just an ambitious nonauthorized person or whether 

he is given direction to coerce. So we certainly support the bill.

Tha t is all I have, Mr. Chairman. I would be glad to answer any 

questions.

Mr. Hungate. Mr. Russo.
Mr. Russo. Just a couple of questions. Would you support a mandatory sentence of 1 year as opposed to a 1-vear maximum sentence.

Mr. Marshall. I don’t thin k I could support that. I th ink there are 

too many unusual circumstances that might prevail.

M r. Russo. OK. You have indicated that you have continually gone 

hack to hit Ohio for a lot of violations.

Mr. Marshall. I spent 5 years in Ohio, Mr. Russo.

Mr. Russo. I was just wondering. I get the impression that your 

organization did something.

Mr. Marshall. Yes.

Mr. Russo. What did you do?

Mr. Marshall. Well, we went in two different directions. We 

threatened going to the Civil Service Commission and we also went 

to the public in press releases.

Mr. Russo. In other words, you didn't file any civil action or 

anything?

Mr. Marshall. In a few cases we did but we never had to go to 

court on it because it was reversed quickly at the time.

Mr. Russo. OK.

Mr. Marshall. But in many areas, public notification of it very 

clearly has its effect.

Mr. Russo. Are you involved in the State of Indiana at all?

Mr. Marshall. Yes. You will be hearing afte r our testimony from 

the executive director of our affiliated organization in Indiana.

Mr. Ri tsso. What has your organization done in Ind iana to alert the 

people and to bring this to a head? It seems it has been going on for 

quite some time.

Mr. Marshall. Right. Well-----

Mr. Russo [continuing]. And-----

Mr. Marshall [continuing]. Mr. Russo, T think I would like to 

defer to Mr. Eble on that because he has a briefcase so full of material 

that he can hardly get it closed-----

Mr. Russo [continuing]. All right.

Mr. Marshal!, [continuing]. With newspaper articles and letters, 

and so forth.

Mr. Russo. How much is the Indiana law being enforced?

Mr. Marshall. Well, I thin k for a long time, from our perspective, 

for a long time our organization did not have the capability in In ­

diana to pursue the issue and the employees were left alone. They have 

developed tha t capability and have pursued the issue and have brought 

it to a head in the last 18 months or 2 years. I would like to have Air. 

Eble comment on it.

Mr. Russo. Thank you.

Mr. Hitngate. Mr. Ilvde.

Mr. Hyde. I have no questions.

Mr. ITuxgate. Counsel ? Mr. Smietanka.

Mr. Smietanka. I would like to ask one question. Mr. Mai’shall. 

You gave some—you gave several examples of solicitation locally 

throughout the country. Were these dealt with locally by criminal 

laws? Hid criminal laws cover this kind of solicitation?

Mr. Marshall. Xot in the cases that I have referred you to, no. We 

opposed them through the civil service structure, throu gh public information, or through Civil Service Commission in violation of the 

Hatch Act. Sometimes the threat of such action with public notifica-
53

tion at the same time in most areas that we have dealt with has solved 

the particular case. It has not solved the problem.

Mr. Smietanka. Would a State law on the subject matter be more 

effective than a Federal law? In particular jurisdictions, particularly 

State.

Mr. Marshall This is a very tough one to answer because a lot depends on the responsibility of the State judiciary system. Many times we have had to go beyond the State on issues and it is a tough one to answer. I think to get a State law passed in most States on this issue would be a tough one because of the self-serving atmosphere and even though they have the law in Indiana, Mr. Eble will be able to point out to you why and how it is not being used. I think the involvement of the Federal intervention into the issue is needed in many jurisdictions 

in this country.

Mr. Smietanka. Thank you very much.

Mr. I Iungate. Thank you. Mr. Marshall, for your helpful contribuI tion. The subcommittee will certainly move in this area.

Mr. Marshall. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. It was a 

pleasure to be here and we appreciate the courtesies.

Mr. II ungate. The next witness is Charles F. Eble, executive director of the Indiana State Employees Association. Please come to the table, Mr. Eble. You have a prepared statement, I believe, and without objection it will be made a part of the record 

at this point.

You may proceed as you see fit. [The prepared statement of Charles F. Eble follows:]

Stateme nt of Cha rles F. E ble. E xe cutiv e Director, I ndiana State

E mploy ees Asso cia tio n

P atr onage in the pu blic se ct or em ploy men t as pr ac tice d in In di an a, is a viciou s 

sy stem whic h un de rm in es adequate pe rs on ne l system s, eft ice nt se rv ice am i se ­ curi ng co mpe tent pe rs on ne l which cer ta in ly co uld no t be in te nd ed by Co ng ress or th e citize ns whe n pro gra m s an d mo ney a re ap pr ov ed fo r pr og ra m s, assis tan ce , jobs or benefits in S ta te an d Local go ve rn m en ts. It us es 2%-f- of av ai la ble fu nds fo r se rv ic e to th e pu blic to w ar d th e us e of 

th e po litica l part ie s ra th e r th an th e pu rp os es f o r which it is intend ed . Th e s ys te m is de sc ribe d as pr es er vi ng th e tw o part y sy st em : m ak in g go ve rn m en t mo re re ­ sp on si ve ; allo win g th e sm al l co ntr ib uto r to p art ic ip ate and fu rt h er de scrib ed 

as a wa y of lif e in In dia na. T he sy stem in In dia na revo lv es pri m ari ly a ro und low-paid em plo yees includ ing cler ical , labo re rs, tr uck dri vers etc., be ca us e th e “inc om e” is g re ate r sin ce th ere are a gre ate r num ber of them an d in cl ud es h ir in g pr ac tice s, pr om ot io ns , 

I m er it in cr ea se s an d more su btle pe rsua sion s. The em plo yee to be hir ed is re qu ired to fill out a patr onag e cl ea ra nc e form which incl ud es sp ac e fo r th e en do rs em en ts from po litica l le ad ers from th e Vice- P re si dent Co mmitt ee man up to th e S ta te C ha irm an of th e im lit ical p art y in ­ volve d. A se rie s of que stio ns are re qu ired to be an sw er ed in cl ud in g one th a t 

* re ads “W ou ld you be w ill in g to co ntr ib ute re gula rl y to th e In dia na S ta te Re ­ pu bl ic an P a rt y ? ” (N O T E : Most of the m ate ri als as sembled de al pri m ar il y w ith th e Rep ub lic an P art y on ly be ca us e th e R ep ub lica ns ha ve had co nt ro l of S ta te go ve rn m en t in In dia na sinc e 1969. Ro th p art ie s ha ve m utu al ly do ne th e sa m e 

th in g. ) W hile In dia na has le arn ed to tr y to dis tingui sh be tw ee n fe der al ly -fun de d pro gr am s an d loca lly fu nded pro gr am s in an effort to circ um ve nt th e fe der al re str ic ti o n s; p a rt of th e pr ob lem invo lves pre ss ure an d th re a ts by loc al Cou nty Com mittee s wh o are no t co ns id er ed sta te officia ls or em ploy ees, but in fa ct , carr y co ns id erab le w ei gh t w ithin th e op er at io n of man y sta te ag en cies such as th e In dia na H ig hw ay Co mmiss ion. Also, man y em ploy ee s who ap ply fo r care er po sition s are st il l re qui re d to fill ou t th e fo rm s fo r “p at ro nage cl ea ra nc e” unt il 

it can be de term in ed t h a t a “c are er” po sitio n is open .
54

H.R. 2920 will in our opinion, close some of the loopholes that allow continued patronage and paym ents to exis t and should be passed by this Congress 

in an effort to reduce the opportu nity for selling public jobs in exchange for 

political money or works. We believe that the citizens of the U.S. and of Indiana 

wan t government to be cleaned up and th at public monies be used for the pu rpose intended and not for partisan political uses.

One final loophole which we would hope to see closed, although not contained 

in H.R. 2920 is that political affiliation be added to the list of discriminatory 

practices contained in the “Civil Rights Act’’ since it is our belief that many 

minorities are discriminated against because of their political affiliation in addition to race, color, creed, sex and national origins.

In summary, the Indiana Sta te Employees Association supp orts the passage of 

H.R. 2920 and we hope th at th is Sub-Committee will make f urther commendations 

to proh ibit political affiliation an d/or payment to be used by any employer, governmen t or otherwise in employment or retention of employees.

TESTIMONY OF CHARL ES F. EBLE, EXEC UT IVE DIRECTOR, IN D IANA STATE EMP LOY EES ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBER T j. McInto sh, chie f counsel, and gar y g. el lswor th,

LEGA L COUNSEL, ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. Eble. If I might, this is a duplication of some of the material 

you have.

Mr. Hunoate. Yes. You have a gentleman with you.

Mr. Eble. Mr. McIntosh, who is the AGE legal counsel of the In ­

diana State Employees Association, who is a member of the independent group of affiliates, such as ourselves, which is the Assembly of 

Governmental Employees.

Basically, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to appear 

today and to explain to you how we feel the system operates in Indiana 

and the difficulties and pressures involved within that system as it 

pertains to the employee.

Basically, we consider it to be a vicious and insidious system. I say 

that with full knowledge of the fact tha t the political parties do not 

like me to say tha t and I receive much criticism over it, but the basicproblem is tha t the whole system revolves primarily around low-paid 

personnel. It revolves around clerical workers. It revolves around 

truck drivers. I t revolves around laborers. The reason why it revolves 

around these jteople is because there is a la rger number of them and if 

you can get 2 percent of their wages you have a considerable amount 

more money coming in than if you just include the department heads 

in the Governor's office.

We recognize the fact tha t in some States this is done with the •

administrative people of the Governor. But, the income would be 

minute for those people. So, in order to have a $500,000-plus income, 

as a State party does in Indiana, it is necessary to go after a larger 

number of people and that becomes the vicious and insidious part of *

the system.

The employee who is hired into these positions, and I might also 

mention that, it is not just the “patronage” positions of which there 

are approximately 7,500, but it also involves other career systems. We 

have employees who are hired in so-called career opportunity-type 

categories, who, in fact, are required to fill out political clearance, and 

are required to pledge to contribute regularly to the State party. They 

are basically told. “Well, we don’t know yet whether there is going to 

be a career position open. So you go ahead and fill out these forms.

A on make your statement as to whether you are going to contribute,
55

ge t the endorse men t. I f there is a c are er position , we wo n't need it, of 

course. . . . “However, if we do n’t have any caree r pos itio ns open , we will put 

you in one of the pa tro na ge pos itio ns and you have alr eady filled o ut 

all the forms and ma de th e necessary agree me nts .” But t hey alread y 

hav e g ott en th e c ommitment a nd they expec t them to live up to it later .

So it works both sides. Th e concept of 7,500 pa tro na ge position s 

is only part of th e ti p of the iceberg. Th e St ate of In di an a ha s 

lea rne d pr et ty closely how to follow a fede rally f un de d proje ct versus 

a loca lly funded p roj ect. Th e St ate does make a p re tty concerted effort 

to tr y to keep res tri cted to those are as where the moneys come from ; 

fo r example, local gasoline tax es as opposed to Fe de ral construction 

money. The instances, how ever, do a lte r, as in th e case of one o f th e le tters which you hav e where a constru ction employee in the St ate hi gh ­

way commission was gone af te r fo r m oney by the W ashing ton County Re publican Com mittee. I would hav e to po int out it is called the 

Tw o Pe rcen t Clu b in In di an a, bu t 2 pe rcen t is also only the tip of 

the iceberg. I t is 2 pe rcen t to the St ate, 1 pe rcen t to the county in 

ma ny instances, wh ich is 3 perc ent. Th ere are co unties where the y are req uir ed to co ntrib ute $150 a year, wh ich sometim es comes to 4 or 5 

perce nt of th at pa rtic ula r employe e's wages, and they also have to pa rtic ip at e in vario us dinn er-ra isi ng fun ctions, fo r instance, a $25 tic ke t to thi s dinn er, a $25 ticke t t o th at din ner. So, 2 p erc ent is only 

th e ti p o f t he iceberg. I t is more insidious th an even th e 2 perc ent a nd 

goes f urther th an th at . Th e bill whi ch you ar e conside rin g by Congres sman Rou sh, which 

I am glad is in, we th in k would go a long w ay to closing a lot of the 

loopholes which hav e been in e xistence up to th is po int.

We firm ly and tr uth fu ll y su pp or t th at bill as a mea ns of he lping 

to c lea r up "the issue, bu t we do feel th at t he re o ug ht to be o th er a rea s 

wh ich are covered with in th is con cept of using a perso n’s po litica l 

affiliatio n, politi cal contrib ution, or politica l wo rk as a means of g et ­

ti ng and r etaining his j ob : as a m eans of g ettin g his promotio ns, m erit 

increases, and so fo rth . We wou ld pa rtic ul ar ly look to som eth ing like the Civ il Ri gh ts Act. We th in k, as an exa mple, using p oli tical affiliatio n contr ibuti on s an d wo rk as a means of g et ting and keepi ng a job 

most pro bably discrim ina tes ag ains t ma ny mi norities . We have trie d 

to find figures, as an ex am ple , on w ha t th e p olitical ratios of m ino rities 

m ight be, bu t we would suspicion, as an exa mple, among blacks t h at 

maybe 60 perce nt are De mo cra t, maybe 40 perce nt Republican . We 

do n’t know wh eth er th at is tru e, bu t we sus pect th at might be tru e. 

B ut definitely, if you use politica l affiliation, you are going to be discrim inating ag ains t grou ps th at have a hi gh er perce nta ge of one 

par ty versus an othe r an d you do get into discrim ina tio n ag ains t mino rities by t hi s ty pe of system.

We do th in k pe rhap s th e subcom mittee ou gh t to look into the con ­

cept of th e Civil Rig ht s Act as well as the H atch A ct and o the r areas. 

So, we do b asically su pp or t this bil l as a mean s o f closing o f t he lo opholes. bu t hope t h at the subcom mittee w ould look i nto othe r are as fo r 

possib ilities o f clo sing ad ditio na l loopholes.

We have att ache d material, some of whi ch you hav e seen and some 

of which you hav e n ot, but if I may—a nd the rea son I gave you a copy 

was so th at we could go thro ug h them in pr op er or de r.1

1

 See p. 63.
56

The first one you have is a very excellent dissertation by Gordon 

Englehart, of the Courier-Journal & Times in Louisville, on how the 

Two percent Club, political contributions system works. It is extremely detailed. It goes throug h the concept of how the employee gets 

his job throu gh the endorsement, the fact tha t the endorsement will 

not be granted unless he says yes to the section which says, “will you 

contribute regularly to the party ?”

Now, this is interesting because the parties then consider that agreement to l>e a contract for employment, and, if the employee makes an 

effort to stop paying his 2 percent, then the party takes the position, 

by and large, that he has now invalidated his employment contract and 

therefore should no longer be employed with the State of Indiana; 

because, he agreed to contribute, if he doesn't contribute now he has 

violated tha t contract, the contract which he entered in order to get *

the endorsement.

The second copy tha t you have is the patronage clearance form itself. That is pretty self-explanatory. As you get into the bottom area 

it says, “Wh at is your political party affiliation ?” “Would you l>e willing to contribute regularly to the Indiana Republican State Central 

Committee?”

I might also point out that most of the materials relate to the Indiana Republican Party only because they have been holding the statehouse for approximately the last 7 years. But there is joint agreement 

by both political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, in In diana th at this is the best system that they have seen in operation to this 

point and both would like to keep it.

There is a statement, as an example, on the next page which has to 

do with the Indiana GOP chairman firing workers reneging on their 

party pledges, the pledges being that they would agree to contribute 

and now they don't want to contribute. The party chairman, of course, 

was Mr. Thomas Milligan and this was September 8. 1974, which is a 

little over a year ago. Let me just read p art of it.

In the left-hand column as you go down, about the fourth para ­

grap h it begins, “Milligan, who is also Wayne County”—tha t is Richmond, Ind.—“GOP chairman noted that every applicant for a State 

pat ronage job fills out a ‘patronage clearance form' that must bear the 

written endorsements of his precinct, county, district, and State party 

officials.”

One question on tha t form reads, “Would you be willing to contribute to the Indiana Republican State Central Committee?”

“ Asa Co unty Ch air ma n," Millig an sa id, “he would not endorse any- f

one who did not write, ‘Yes’ to the question.”

So the concept of the clearance merely being a recommendation, in 

my opinion, is a false assumption because this is the attitude of most 

of the county chairmen, precinct committeemen, the district chairmen. *

11 you look back here there are 10 people that have to endorse this particu lar form and any one of them, generally all of them, will say,

“All right, you say yes. or, I won't sign it.” So it is not merely a recommendation. It is a solicitation for contributions and a pledge to contribute. So, I do feel th at should definitely be part of the record.

The next one was basically a letter from two former employees who 

finally were fed up with it. I might point out, too, tha t this whole 

insidious thing detracts, in our opinion, from good personnel policies 

and procedures because an employee who is really good, and an em-
ployee who is rea lly com pet ent, just won't pu t up with this. Th e good 

ones will come in. will lx* told, “Well. now. you have got to fill out thi s 

form , you have got to agree to contr ibu te 2 p ercent o f you r wages p lus 

wh ate ver the cou nty picks up .” The good ones will just say, “hey. I 

do n’t need this kind of work. I can find an othe r job because I am 

qualified and I am comp ete nt. ”

So you have a ten den cy throug h such a system to reduce the competenc y o f the w ork forc e.

Mr. H ungate. W ho is wo rking in In di an a?

Mr. E ble. Exc use me?

Mr. H ungate. W ho is wo rking in In dian a ?

Mi 1

. E ble. Well, Mr. Ch airm an , the m ajor ity o f t he State employees 

are conscientious emp loye es who them selv es do not like the system . 

Many of them got into th is system by virtu e of ha ving been out of 

work, by needi ng a job, an d to some exten t fo r ma ny of them it was 

the only wav to get a job. Fr an kl y, the y did agree at the time to it. 

One of t he thing s th at we have confr onted in In di an a is t he political 

pa rti es will say, “W ell, they needed the job. they wa nte d the job. and 

th is is how they agr eed to get the job. and therefore the y are stuck 

with it. They shou ldn ’t renege later.”

Well, I firm ly believe th at times change, as C ong ressman Roush has 

said, th at just because 20 or 25 y ear s ago a person bad to be white to 

get a job in certain are as, it doesn't mean it was valid at the time or 

is valid today. I believe the same is t rue with pa tro nage. Ju st because 

it happened d oesn 't mean it is righ t.

The next art icle is basic ally a lette r to the Iler al d- A rg us in the 

La Po rte . Ind., area by two employees who fina lly stu ck th ei r necks 

out and basically ha d con cluded them selves th at it was just not worth 

it. “W e can find bette r jobs."

Th e th ird article th at is the next sheet is bas ically a copy of a— it is 

split up actua lly these are the papers that the Xerox is made. Th is is 

a copy of “T he Republican New s,’’ which is the St ate pa rty pu bli cation, and this is one of the articles th at ap pe ared within th at 

publication .

“One of th e nicest things abou t winning elections is w inn ing control 

of pa tro na ge position s for the p ar ty fa ith fu l.

“M any pos itions in va rio us fields are now available in Indian a 

St ate government. Ap plican ts for patro nage pos itio ns are required to 

get par ty clea rance,” and so f or th an d so on.

“ Ri gh t now, Mrs. Sm ith has an op ening fo r an assistan t direc tor 

of t he social sec urity di sa bi lit y deter mi natio n divisio n of the Indian a 

Re ha bilitation Services Bo ard . . .” which certa inly is a fed era lly 

funded typ e of situa tio n.

Also the other are a on the bottom is w eighmen. These are the weigh 

sta tio ns on the interstate hig hw ays and the regu lar E.S . hig hways 

and St ate hig hw ays where they weigh tru cks, and so forth . These 

pos itio ns are also p atr on ag e type of po sition s an d are solicited throug h 

the pa rty faith ful.

Bv the way, the date on th at is Ju ne -J ul y 1973, so it is not like 10 

years ago.

Th e second one is also fro m “The Republican Xews,” Septe mb er 

1973, which details en gin eerin g jobs th at are open. It does go up the
58

Now, I might point out the salaries of these engineering positions, 

are $16,328. If you consider setting a monetary level, I hope you 

won't set it so low tha t it will eliminate career-type positions. 

Basically, they were asking for engineers in the article.

“At least six civil and agricultural engineers are needed in the 

Division of Water of the Department of Natural Resources. The 

agricultural engineers should have a hydrologic background."

So this was going to be conservation-type work for the Department 

of Natural Resources where the Federal funds are involved whether 

it is totally local funds. I would suspicion if it is in the area of conservation there is probably some sort of Federal funding. In any 

event, the salaries were up to $16,328 pe r year. So I do hope tha t if 

you do set a dollar figure, you won’t keep it so low that it will eliminate 

these types of positions.

The following article is an article of the Indianapolis Star, Ja nuary 16, 1975. This was an effort by Mayor R ichard Lugar of the city 

of Indianapolis to try to get away from the 2 percent and go to a 

more voluntary system. Interestingly enough, they sort of equated 

it to pledging within churches. As the churches go around and ask 

each of the members of the church to pledge some money, the party 

does feel that they have as much r igh t as the church to go around to 

ask for pledges of money.

In this particular case, I believe that you will find tha t the pledges, 

assuming that they were all paid, would have amounted to approximately 3 percent of th e combined salaries of those involved. And this 

was a voluntary pledge.

Now, I would point out we of the ISEA have no problem with 

voluntary donations or voluntary political work by employees, but the 

problem becomes, once you are found to be in arrears, you are in trouble with your j ob ; you are in trouble with your promotions; you are in 

trouble with your merit increases.

The following article has to do with the Democratic Party in the 

State of Indiana. As you can see, they have announced here there was 

a bill in the last session of the general assembly that tried to totally 

prohibit the 2 percent type of solicitation, to go into a tax allocation 

basis on the State income tax, and so forth. The Democratic Party 

said they would give up their 2 percent solicitation if th at bill passed: 

which indicates, one, they are collecting 2 percent in many areas, and 

two, they are not quite ready to give it up until they have a substitute. 

I believe this is also probably the position of the other party as well. 

So it does involve both parties.

I would have to also point out tha t tha t bill did not pass in the 

general assembly.

Now, this again, I would hope to point out, presents another insidious aspect of the whole proposition. We have suggested to both 

political parties that if this is such a good th ing—that 2 percent of 

an employee’s wages be paid into a political party, tha t is the wav 

to get the little man contributing to the democratic process—which 

is usually how it is phrased—and keep the biggies from taking over 

the political parties—then it would seem to us if th is was valid, equitable. reasonable for everybody concerned, the Federal Government 

and State government should take 2 percent of all payrolls and give 

them to the political parties. I f the thing is righ t, then that would seem 

to be the best approach.
59

However, everybody backs away from t ha t. Th ey say, “O h, we c an ’t 

use taxp ay ers money to fu nd a politica l par ty .” W ha t is 2 perce nt 

of th e employee’s wages, b ut tax pa ye r m oney ? Th e em ployees are paid 

thro ug h the taxp ay ers’ contrib utions throug h tax es or otherwise. So 

you are, in fac t, using tax pa ye r money by vi rtue o f th e politi cal contri bu tio ns systems th at is go ing on. I f peop le wa nt to be h one st, the n 

just go aft er the money an d ge t the money an d stop th is chara de of 

sayin g, “O h. no, this is a n emp loyee c on tri bu tio n.” H e c an ’t ge t his job 

unle ss he agrees to make a co ntr ibuti on .

Th e othe r articles are sim ila r, explaining how th e system works. 

Th e lette rs are in resp onse to one of the q ues tions th at was mentioned 

ear lier. W ha t happens is these let ter s come out, fo r instan ce, Ju ly 6, 

1971, to all employees. Now, i t doesn’t lim it it. I t says, “ To all employ ­

ees.” W ha t you will find is the May 14, 1971 letter was con sidered to 

have been the lette r upo n wh ich e very body bas ed th ei r decisions as to 

wh ethe r it was vo luntary or man da tory, because th e Ma y 14 lette r 

said th at it would be v olun tary . Th en the sup erintend en t pu ts h is out 

an d said, “W ell, you ar e go ing to be au tom ati cally dismissed.” An d 

th en wha t will ha pp en is th e officials will say, “W ell he did n’t hav e 

au th or ity to put th at out .”

I t is pre tty difficult to e xp lain to an emp loye e t hat he (sup erintend ­

en t) di dn ’t have au th or ity to p u t that out, because he is th e p erson who 

hires a nd fires in t hat ga rag e. B ut you w ill find th e h ig he r officials will 

pu t aside th at letter an d say t h at i t is no t S ta te policy, th at d id n’t come 

fro m the hig hw ay comm ission, an d so fo rth .

Tha t pre tty well covers th at type of mate ria l. Th e one othe r th in g 

I th ou gh t you should be aw are of is the mec han ism by which it is 

solicite d. I did not make copies of these envelopes. I br ou gh t these 

env elopes d irectly. If you wo uld wa nt to keep the m, I would be glad 

to let you have them.

Th e da tes of thes e are Aug us t 22,1974, A ug us t 23, 1974. Thi s is b asically th e syste m as i t o perates, wh ich I th in k is a ve ry difficult system 

in itself. These are In di an a St at e Hi gh wa y Com mission envelopes. 

The se are agency envelopes. In this case, the e mployee owes $4.50. I n 

th is case, th e employee owes $5.15. Th is employe e is behin d $36.60, and 

so fo rth .

An yhow , thes e are the pa y envelopes, by an d lar ge, th at are passed 

out to the employees wi th th is t yp e of envelope alo ng w ith how much 

they owe. Th en the pa rtic ul ar fo rem an involved, who takes care of th at 

group, begin s to colle ct th e money by next Mo nday or Tuesd ay, and 

he, by and large, lists on the back of ano the r envelo pe who paid arid how 

much. He mak es a repo rt to th e district as w ell as to the c ou nty cha irman inv olv ed because some di stric ts will cover several counties.

Mr. H ungate. W ho m akes t he e ntry on the indiv idual envelopes as 

to how m uch is owed ?

Mr. E ble. T his is ge ne rally done wi thin the su bd istri ct offices by a 

clerica l wo rker who gets the pay checks and makes ou t the envelopes 

fo r the subd ist ric t supe rin tend en t. One of the pro blems in ­

volved is the trac in g of Fe de ra l fun ds. Most of th e investigatio ns 

by the Fe de ra l Go vernm ent ha ve come to a halt basic ally at some 

of these levels because it becomes a question, as a n exam ple in th e subdistric ts of the In di an a St ate Hig hw ay Com mission, of wh ethe r any 

Fe de ral fund s were invo lved or n ot. I alwa ys find t h at difficult to un-
60

derstand because the agency itself gets millions of dollars of Federal 

funds. Then they find some poor devil down there with six kids, and 

I'm not kidding you, we have a fellow right now who has been t ran sferred from one subdistrict unit, to another who owes $160 at 2 percentI le was to'ltl the transfer was to get a better handle on him and make 

his life difficult until he pays up the money. The man has six children, 

his wife is 4 months pregnant, he has been transferred to another unit, 

and he has been told the reason is lie will be under the thumb of the 

subdistrict superintendent.

In some of these cases, it is a matter of just having to spend all our 

time trying to dig down into the details and tryi ng to get it corrected. 

The situation, as far as the attorney general in the State of Indiana is 

concerned, is that if we charge a State official with that type of activity 

it is the attorney general who defends him. As an example we went to 

the Federal Government for a political affiliation firing in the depa rtment of public instruction, which definitely has Federal funds, and it 

was the Indiana Attorney General who defended the superintendent 

of public instruction. So we don't feel that we can find both a prosecutor and a defender in the same person and get adequate justice.

That concludes my testimony. I apologize for taking so Jong and I 

will be glad to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. Hungate. Thank you, Mr. Eble.

Mr. Russo.

Mr. Russo. I don't understand why, under the Indiana law, this 

practice is allowed to continue. If the attorney general is the one tha t 

has to do the defending, why isn't a special prosecutor's office set up in 

the State of In dian a to handle these particular violations ?

Mr. E ble. I will be perfectly frank with you, sir. Nobody wants to 

see this system go down the tube. It is too profitable to allow it to go 

down the tube.

To give an example, there was a study committee on personnel from 

1969 to 1971 which was formed by the State legislature. The effort was 

to try to come up with some system which would be compatible to all 

interests. That study committee, in fact, attempted initially to abolish 

the entire merit system within Indiana and only because of the fact 

that the Civil Service Commission out of the Chicago regional office 

came down and told them how much Federal money they would lose if 

they abolished the system did they retain it.

Now, then, if you read the report it says, “compelled to accept the 

merit system." and then goes on and tries to pick up those which the 

Federal Government did not require merit system and p ut them under 

other areas.

Mr. Russo. Maybe what we ought to do in requiring any of our appropriations, the money sent to the States, require that those who work 

under it must be under a merit system as opposed to the patronage 

system.

Mr. Eble. If you did that on all Federal funding that went into the 

States, just praise God, that would really be a tremendous assistance 

because they will not do it unless they are dragged kicking and screaming and everything else into the 20th century as far as personnel practices are concerned. I expect to hear about all this when I get home, 

but this is the truth.
61

Now, to give you an idea of what happened in the 1969 to 1971 s ituation, this was the concept that they had of g ettin g responsive govern­ ment. and good personnel practices. They decided, both parties, tha t instead of fighting about the turnover on the change of administration, and say 100 percent would be Republican and 100 percent would be Democrat, both parties agreed to a bill which was commonly called the 60-to-40 bill. Now. the 60-to-40 bill, legally within State law, al­ lowed within certain agencies, including all the hourly employees, 2,500 of them in highway, th at 60 percent of the employees belong to the political party in power. The bill says you can’t have more than 60 percent; which means you can have 60 percent, and the other par ty— 

we are a two-party State—has the remainder if they can get it. Now, that system then was called the 60 to 40. Now, it is a slight misnomer because it never sent 40 percent to the other party. It just said the party in power could not have more tha n 60 percent. The con­ cept of efficiency and everything and modern personnel practices was 

> tha t when the party changed, only 20 percent would have to change, to change the 60-to-40 ratio and the 20-percent change was bette r than 100-percent change and therefore that was a good personnel policy procedure. Tha t was written into the law in Indiana in 1971. It is pa rt of our State statutes for certain agencies. But it never has been implemented even though it is part of the law. It includes a prohibition on political coercion. These things are illegal under tha t 

law. Yet the law basically has never been implemented.

Mr. Rt ;sso. Has your group institu ted any other type of litigation at all. civil litigation for restraining orders to implement the law of 

Indiana ?

Mr. Eble. The problem becomes getting the material together versus proving it to a court's satisfaction. Mr. Russo. Obviously, you must have some individuals who aren't too happy about the way things are going. Why aren’t they coming 

forward ?

Mr. E ble. Some of them fear for their jobs. I t is one thing to give 

you the material. It is another thin g to go into court, testify, and then 

risk losing your job. Mr. Russo. Your organization ought to set up some kind of a fund so you can encourage those to come forward to testify and have some 

sort of a support fund if they lose their job.

Mr. Eble. It is beginning to occur. We finally got the support of 

i Common Cause and the Indiana Civil Liberties Union in the past year

and these people are helping to support legal action. Mr. Russo. What about the newspapers? Obviously they write about 

it. What effect are they having on the local political figure?

, Mr. E ble. Very little.

Mr. Russo. Maybe t hat is why 58 percent of the people in this country vote and the other 42 percent say, “To heck with it.”

Mr. Hungate. Air. Hyde.

Mr. Hyde. Does Mr. Hatcher have any of the problems up in Gary, 

Ind. ? Does he have a Two Percent Club?

Mr. E ble. I have to qualify this because I don’t have any members 

in Gary and have not done an indepth investigation. It is mv under62 -6 63 — 76 ------ 5
62

standing tha t patronage was rampant within the city of Gary. It was 

my understanding there was an effort to try to reduce it considerably, 

if not do away with it, but I do understand patronage to some extent 

exists in Gary, Ind.

Mr. Hyde. You are just against patronage as a system, right?

Mr. E bee. No, sir.

Mr. Hyde. You are not against it ?

Mr. Eble. No, sir. We tnin k there is a place for control of policymaking and we support voluntary political contributions to a party, 

support voluntary political activity for a party. We recognize tha t 

the political parties in order to carry out their policies must retain 

a certain amount of control within the public sector. What we are 

against is an employee’s job being dependent upon political contributions, being dependent upon his political work; that his raises, his 

promotions, his transfers become dependent upon his political contributions and political work.

We have no problem with voluntary donations and we have no 

problems with the high-policymaking areas being political appointments.

Mr. H yde. T)o you see any analogy between the compulsory 2 percent 

and, say, some union check off system where you have to belong to the 

union in order to get your job? You don’t even get an envelope. They 

take it out of your pay and it goes to support quite possibly political 

ideas, ideologies, and candidates to which you are violently opposed, 

but you can’t get your job unless you pay dues and you can’t keep your 

job unless you pay dues. They take it out of your pay. Tha t is just as 

unjust as the areas to which you are committed and dedicated, but over 

here in patronage it is a great evil. I would like you to reconcile those 

things.

Mr. Ebee. There is no basic difference between what you said and 

what I said. Mr. Milligan will be glad to tell you we have publicly, all 

over the State of Indiana within the news media and within hearings 

within the State legislature, opposed any mechanism, whether it be 

agency or union shop or patronage, that would require an employee 

to pay someone to keep a public job.

Mr. H yde. Then you are for right to work, for the right to work law.

Nlr. Ebee. We are into a m atter of semantics. If an employee’s job, 

a public servant’s job, public citizen’s job—I dislike to use the word 

“servant” but everybody seems to use it—if an employee is dedicated 

to serving the public and is a competent person and he is going to be 

fired because he didn’t pay eithe r a political p arty or union and that is 

the basis for his firing, I th ink it is wrong and unjust.

Mr. Hyde. I have no furth er question.

Mr. Hungate. Counsel?

Mr. Smtetanka. I have no questions.

Mr. H ungate. If there are no furthe r questions by the subcommittee, 

we than k you very much Mr. Eble. We appreciate your evidence and 

testimony.

Would you like these patronage pamphlets made part of the 

hearing record?

Mr. Eble. Yes. I thought you would find these interesting.

Mr. Hungate. Without objection, they will be made a part of the 

record.

[The materials referred to follow :]
[From th e C ourier-Jou rnal & Times, Aug. 5, 1973]

The T wo P er Cent Club : Political Give and T ake

(By Gordon Englehart)

Indianapolis.—That perennial bogeyman—Indiana’s Two Per Cent Club—once 

again is in the news. This time, it’s a federal fiscal watchdog tha t’s aghast. For 40 years, Indian a state government patronage workers have voluntarily— or, more precisely, involuntarily voluntarily—forked over 2 per cent of their pay 

to sta te headquarters of th eir political party. The club’s alleged ra tionale: it is better to fund political organizations through small contributions from thosuands of patronage workers than for the organizations to become beholden to a few big fat-cat donors. Through all four decades, Indiana editorial writers periodically have railed 

against this “extortion.” Out-of-state political writers, coming here to cover campaigns, get goggle-eyed when they stumble onto the institution, peculiar to Indiana. They become doubly 

incredulous when they find few Hoosiers apologetic about it. Indiana governors and state headquarters of both parties have unfailingly perpetuated and protected the system. There was one brief aberration. GOP Gov. Edgar D. Whitcomb, with a great huff and puff of piety, denounced the club, and ordered collections stopped. As soon as Whitcomb got rid of an un­ friendly state chairman at state headquarters, however, the take resumed. Whitcomb did pinpoint a flaw th at has has grown less defensible over the years : The percentage of patronage workers is shrinking, as merit or merit-type sys­ tems expand. Now, only an estimated 7,200 of state government’s 25,000 em­ ployes are patronage. Why should 7,200 pay 2 per cent when 17,800 working right 

alongside do not ? The newest salvo a t the club was fired last week by the federal General Ac­ counting Office, which asked the U.S. Justice Department to determine whether GOP state headquarters in 1972 had violated the 1971 Federal Election Campaign 

Act. The key question was whether some state employes, paid wholly or partially from federal funds, were given jobs in return for promising to contribute 2 per 

cent. GOP State Chairman Thomas B. Milligan had the classic response. There was no such quid pro quo, and the contributions are strictly voluntary, and that being so, there can be no law violation—whether an employe is paid 

from federal or from state funds, he insisted. Until some better system comes along, GOP Gov. Otis R. Bowen said, as other 

governors have said before him, he sees nothing wrong with it.

STATE EMPLOYEES “ INV OLUN TARIL Y VOLUNTARIL Y” GIVE 2 PERCENT TO PARTY

The crux of the issue is the word “voluntary.”

Here is how the patronage system works : First, a prospective employe has to get by a long “patronage clearance form.” He fills in questions about his education, training and employment record, and 

answers this question: “Would you be willing to contribute regularly to the Indiana Republican State Central Committee?” (“Bear in mind that this would be the same Democratic 

drill if the governor were a Democrat.) The form provides for endorsement signatures of the party precinct, ward, 

county, district, and sta te chairmen and vice-chairmen. The hopeful gets the job. He reports to a department. There he fills in a small 

white card th at states :

“I voluntarily subscribe the sum of $--------to the Indiana Republican State

Central Committee for the ye ar beginning--------.”

The card states he can pay by cash or check—quarterly, monthly, or biweekly.

With some slight variations, collection of 2 per cent is the same in all state 

departments. There is a boss bag man. to use an inelegant term, since many are women. In the State Department of Revenue, for example, it is Mrs. Elmer Burns, administrator of the personnel and payroll division. A solicitor, or “forwarder.” is appointed for each division within the depart­ ment. In revenue, that adds up to 21 within the State Office Building and 12 in the 

field offices.
64

State employes are paid every two weeks. For the most part, af ter getting paid, 

they look up the solicitor and hand over cash or a check for 2 per cent of takehome, not gross, pay. Tht solicitor gives the contributor a receipt tha t “acknowledges with thanks . . . ” Every solicitor turns all cash and checks into the bag man. along with a “contribution report” listing each contributor alphabetically, and his contribution.

The bag man normally converts the cash into a cashier's check from the bank 

branch in the basement of the State Office Building, and then lugs it and the 

checks across Capitol Avenue to state GOP headquarters. Once, Mrs. Burns recalled, she had $4,000 to deliver, and lined up a security 

guard to ride shotgun on the walk to headquarters.

All the various forms have duplicates, which are disseminated among the contribtuors, solicitors, bag men and state headquarters. State headquarters every year assesses every GOP county organization a quota 

cash amount to pay for headquarters operations. A worker’s 2 per cent payment 

is credited to his home county's quota. GOP Chairman Milligan estimates tha t the Two Per Cent Club pours $31,000 to 

$85,000 a month into headquarters. Last year it accounted for nearly half of all 

GOP State Central Committee revenue. Mrs. Betty O’Connor at Democratic State Headquarters reports tha t employes 

in the Democratic-controlled offices of secretary of state, treasurer, auditor, and 

Supreme and Appellate Court clerk produced $000 to $800 a month in 2 per cent 

contributions to her office.

Although Republicans control most Statehouse offices, some Democrats hold 

patronage jobs. Some of these pay 2 per cent to Republican headquarters and some 

to Democratic headquaters. Anyone trying to establish beyond any courtroom doubt just how voluntary the 

payments are might as well attempt to corral the wind in his fist.

Bowen said he has never seen any evidence of anyone being tired for refusing 

to cough up.

He allowed, however, that “I’m not saying there’s not some encouragement and 

urging.”

Translated, tha t m eans :

Everyone signing on in state government, presumably, is aware of the 40-yearold system and accepts it as a way of life. To get the job, he has to sign twice that 

he will go along.

Once on the job, he can refuse to pay and probably get away with it. No boss 

with any sense is going to cite that refusal in canning him. Nonetheless, pressure, 

however masked and subtle, is there—from his boss and from his peers who are 

paying.

Mrs. Burns in Revenue says 98 per cent of the department’s 800 employes contribute. including the 250 bipartisan (ha lf Democrat, half Republican) employes 

in the audit division.

“We don’t fire them,” Mrs. Burns said to the holdouts. But she calls them in 

and tries to reason with them. And she sends out some prodding memos to all 

workers.

“Don’t you agree that, even though this is voluntary, it should be treated in 

some respects as collecting taxes, wliat is fair for one is fair for all?” she wrote 

on Sept. 15, 1970.

"We do need the contributions to help the Republican administration retain 

their authority in providing the positions these employes are now holding.

“Since this contribution is voluntary, it is requested the administrators remind 

their employes that while most employes do contribute, there are still a few, including some bipartisan employes, who are shirking their responsibility. Let's all 

get together and have a 100 per cent participation.”

On .Tilly 25, aware of a handful of recalcitra nts in audit. Mrs. Burns wrote another memo, extolling the legislature for exempting that division from obligation 

to political activity.

But, she said, “political parties live, breathe, and exist only on the monetary 

support they receive from contributions received from those who believe in the 

particular political philosophy espoused by such political entities.”

“We believe we have at our disposal a unique opportunity to participate in supporting the political party of our choice without violating the bipartisan concept.

“With those thoughts in mind, we would like to solicit all audit division personnel to continue 100 per cent particiaption in the 2 per cent voluntary contribution 

program.”
.65 -VV

A yea r ago, Mrs. Burns recalled, a young woman employe balked, saying she 

did n’t believe anyone could tell her wh at to do w ith her pay.

“I'tr ie d to make her und erstand ‘hat these contributions to the Republican 

Pa rty help us elect candidates of our choice, th at we are tryi ng to keep big bu siness from taking over, th at if she were in private ind ustry she would be paying 

comparable union d ues.” Mrs. Burns said. The young woman paid up.

Mrs. Burn s and others in oth er departm ents told of “leniency” in allowing employes who are ill or have other problems to postpone paym ents—temp orarily.

“This bureau is a politic al dep artm ent,” said Ralph Van Natta, commissioner 

of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, with 550 employes in the Sta te Office Building 

headquarters.

“We do firmly expect every employe . . . we politely say to everyone coming 

in . . . we explain it to them to star t with . . . we have no problems (in 100 pe r 

cent collection),” he said.

Van N atta recalled personally phoning one ba lker out in the field.

“I did not fire him,” the commissioner said. “He said, ‘Hell, I ’m not going to 

mess w ith it,’ and sent in his resignation.”

The Natura l Resources Department lias about 900 winter employes, including 

235 on patronage, and Mrs. Dorothy Trump reports th at virtually all 235 

contribute.

In summer, however, employment zooms to 2,200, mostly at the parks, and 

therein lies trouble. Many of these low-paid newcomers are college studen ts, 

strictly temporary.

At GOP s tate hea dqu arters. Mrs. Vera Warren, patronage clerk in the finance 

depa rtment, who receives all Two Per Cent Club payments from sta te de pa rtments, displayed July 3 and Jul y 11 reports from Mrs. Hester Stillions, the 

clerk and solicitor at Monroe Reservoir.

The July 3 report showed th at 32 of 6S employes refused to pay, while the 

Jul y 11 report indic ated th at 47 of 72 workers refused.

At Bloomington, Mrs. Stillions was reluctan t to discuss the matter , but confirmed th at most of the employes are collegians who had affirmatively signed 

both the patronag e cleara nce form and the white card.

None had been fired for reneging, she said. And, she added, she has not “pres ­

sured ” anyone.

“I tell them that 2 p er cent is required of them, but t ha t if they don’t pay, th at 

is up to them, and higher (de partm ent) autho rities can tak e it from there,” she 

said.

62 663 - 76 6
This Is N O T A n Ap pt icoiiofU 

For State Em plo yment. PATR O N AG E CLE AR AN CE FORM

M r.

Mrs.

5m>: Mis s D o t

*

:

Address.-

(u e) (KUdla)

Phone.-

City, Cou nty: District:

Ag e: Birth Date.- Heig ht: W eig ht: M ori to l Status:

EDUCA TION & TRAIN ING

O re l* Riche st GRADE SC HO OL

G ra de C om plete d: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

HIGH SC HO OL 

9 10 11 12 

COLLEG E/U NIV ERSIT Y 

1 2 3 4 G ra duate 

M ajor :

Minor:

Degree:

N am e .. __

Lo cc tio n __---------------------------------------------------------------

N o m e --------------------- ------------------------------------------------

Locatio n________- — ---------------------------------------------

N a m e _____ . ______________________________

Lo ca tio n __---------------------------------------------------------------

Ye ar Last

A tt e n d e d :____________

Ye ar Last

A tt o n d e d :____________

Ye ars Atten de d

F ro m _________________

T o ___________________

OTHER: (Pleose spec ify type of train in g such as voca tional, business, corre sp on de nce, etc., in cl uding an y re giste re d or lice nsed pro fession)

EMPLOYMENT RECORD

List th re e w or k ex pe rie nc es, be ginn ing w ith the mo st rece nt:

F~ nct ti tle of po sitio n :________________________.__________________

jry : S to rti n g _________________ Per_________________

F in a l_________________ Per_________________

Duties.- __________________________________________________________

Types o f m ach in es /e quipm en t used:______________________________

Dates of em ploy men t: F ro m ---------------------------- t o -----------------------------

N am e of Employer.- — -------- ---- -------------------------- - —

Lo catio n: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nam e & title of su per vis or :----------------------------------------------------------------

Reason fo r leav ing: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exa ct title o f po sitio n :__________________________________________

Salary: S ta rti n g _________________ Pe r_________________

F in a l_________________ Per_________________

Duties.- ___________________________________________________________

Dates o f em ploy men t: F ro m ----------------------------

Nam e of Em plo yer:-------------------------------------------

Lo catio n: -------------------------------------------------------------

Nam e & title of su perv is or: -------------------------------

t o ________________

Types of m ac hines /e quipm en t used.-_____________________________ Reason fo r lea ving :

Excct title of po sitio n :__________________________________________

Salary.- S ta rti n g ________________ Per_________________

F in a l________________ Per_________________

Duties: ____________________________________________________ ■■ — ■

Dates o f employment.- F ro m -----------------------------

Nam e o f Em plo yer:-------------------------------------------

Locatio n: -------------------------------------------------------------

Nam e & title o f superviso r.---------------------------------

t o ________________

Types o f m ac hines /e quipm en t used:-------------------------------------------------- Reason fo r leav ing:

Hav e you ev er held a po sition or offic e in any br anc h o f go ve rn men t?—— -----------------------------------------

If so, in w ha t ca p a c ity ? ------------------------------------------------------------— ---------------------------------------- —— ----------

D e p a rtm e n t o n d p o s it io n a p p ly in g fo r: (a d m in is tra ti v e , c le ric a l, la b o re r, etc .) -----------------------

t is your po litica l part y aff ilia tion ?------------------------------------------ — -------------- -------------------------------------

Vv ou ld you be w illin g to co ntribute re gula rly to th e In dia na Repu blica n State Cen tral Committe e?

For O ffic e Use O n ly

Dep t. . . -

N om e_____________________ _ ___________________ _______________________________ ___

(Lad) (Flrat) (MtfdU)

Ad dre ss___________________________ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________________________

G . I_______________________ -

N . I_________________________

P. C________________________

M O. _______________________

GT_________________________

A N _________________________

O th e r _____________________

O . Cou nty District

(•It opplkotla)

A p plican t's S igna ture

ENDORSEMENTS

1. Precinc t V ic e -C o m m it te e m a n -----------------------------------—- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Precinc t C om m ittee man ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. *W c rd V i c e - C h a i r m o n -------------------------— ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ——

4. •W o rd Cha irm an -----------------------— ....................................................................................................

5. County V i c e - C h a i r m a n --------------------------------—--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. County C h a i r m e n --------------------- -----------------------------— -— ----------------------------------------------------

7. District Vice-C hairm on ----------------- -- - - - --------------------— -----------------------------------------------------------

8. District C hcirm cn ------------------------------------------------------- —--------------------------------------------------------

9. St cfe Vic e C hairm an -----------------------— ------------ y----- ------ ---------------------------------------------------------

10. State C hairm an — -------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------

Secure en do rsem en t sign atur es 1-8 ond fo rw ard ap plica tion to Repu blica n St ate Hea dq ua rter s fo r fu rthe r
67

I ndiana GOP Head Says H e’d F ire Pledge Balkers

(By Gordon Engle har t)

Indianapolis.—Republican Sta te Chairman Thomas S. Milligan yesterda y said 

he would recommend firing state patronage workers who renege on pledges to 

voluntarily contribute 2 per cen t of their pay to the party.

GOP Gov. Otis R. Bowen, however, when told of Milligan’s sta tem ent, declare d :

“I ’have said over a nd over th at it is volu ntary—and if i t’s voluntary, you don ’t 

fire if they don’t contribute, as long as they a re performing th eir job.

“Bu t I suspect tha t anybody that is ever fired from here on, the accusation will 

be it’s because they did n’t p ay the ir 2 pe r cent, when actually there can be a lot 

of reasons for firing.”

Sta te government’s 25,000 employes include about 7,200 patronage workers. 

Milligan estimates th at 5,500 patronage and me rit employes voluntarily give 2 

per cent of their wages to the GOP State Centra l Committee under a 40-year-old 

system followed by both parties .

Charles F. Eble, executive sec reta ry of the Ind iana State Employes Association (IS EA ), in August urge d s tate employes to refuse to pay the 2 per cent st art ­

ing with Sept. 20 biweekly paychecks.

IN D IA N A GOP CHAIR M AN FAV ORS FIRING WORKE RS RENEGING ON PAR TY PLED GES

On Sept. 27, Eble estima ted th at 1,000 of 2,500 state highway patronage w’orkers had stopped paying. He also said “the w’ord is out” th at state officials would 

tak e no action (dismissal, suspension or demotion) again st balkers until af te r 

the Nov. 5 election.

Yesterday Milligan said Eble had no basis for his estimate.

GOP State He adquarters has not toted up final figures on the Sept. 20 collection, Milligan said. In some areas, a spot-check showed th at the boycott w as effective, b ut in other places, collections were up, he said.

SOME WOR KERS “ IN DIS PENSA BLE”

Milligan cited the centr al office of the Ind ian a Sta te Highway Department, in 

the Sta te Office Building, an d the Vincennes dis trict as reporting higher collections.

Asked if he would verify Eble’s forecast of post-election firings, Milligan 

re pl ied: “I ’m not going to make that stateme nt. Neithe r am I going to say no one will be 

fired after the election.” He stressed th at he as GOP sta te chairman neither hires nor fires sta te patr on ­

age workers b ut only processes the ir political clearance.

“I t’s really a highway depar tment ma tter, to implement the policy of the 

governor,” he said of possible firings. Milligan and Charles Cook, executive director of the GOP Sta te Fina nce Committee, observed th at t he re may be nonpaying workers who are indispensable in 

some departments.

“Each case has to be addressed separately ,” Milligan said.

Milligan, who is also Way ne County (Richmond) GOP chairman, noted th at 

every applicant for a sta te patrona ge job fills out a “patrona ge clea rance for m” 

th at must bear the w ritten endorsem ents of his precinct, county, d istric t and s ta te 

party officials. One question on tha t form reads, “Would you be willing to contribu te regularly 

to the Indiana Republican S tat e Central Committee?” As a county chairman, Milligan said, he would not endorse anyone who did 

not write, “Yes,” to the question. If the applicant agrees, is hire d but la te r brea ks th at comm itment by refusing to pay, Milligan said, “he has jeopardized h is political clearance for a patro nage job t ha t requires clearance.” Milligan said he would, at the county level, urge the firing of th at worker.

W ha t ab out statewide, in his ca pacity as stat e c hairman?

• “The policy of clearance is at stak e here.” Milligan asserte d. “I would recommend th at a person in a patronag e job who does not ma intain political clea rance 

be terminated—I don’t like the word ‘fired.’ ” Would he wa it to make th at recommendation until af te r the election?

“I recommend it rig ht now,” Milligan declared. “I would have said the same 

thing in July.”
Milligan and Cook echoed Bowen in avowing tha t contributions are voluntary.

Milligan said OOP State Headquarters had contacted the 37 sta te highway subdis trict superintendents and others in other departm ents responsible for the 2 

l>er cent collections, and urged them to Seek out balkers and impress on them the 

des irab ility of supi>orting the p art y structure .

«l i. < • ' ■ j ■ ■■ ■.■

BOWEN STRESSES JOB PERFORMANCE

County chairmen also have been enlisted, Milligan said.

(Eble on Sept. 27 charged t ha t “our members have been threatene d directly and 

indirectly .”)

. Milligan said Bowen's “reaffirmation of the patronage system” before the 

I SEA convention Sept. 29 had heli>ed collections in some areas.

Bowen told the convention its paycheck rebellion is “rather a direct slap at my 

admi nis tratio n” but said this should not be interpreted as “a threat to your 

status .”

The governor was somew hat touchy yeste rday when asked to comment on Milligan's remarks. “You’re kind of—I mean this kindly—you're trying to do some divide-andconquer work here between Tom and me. with this type of questioning,” he 

said.

“I t has to be a volu ntary program .” Bowen stressed. “We are approaching 

it thro ugh an appeal to the ir responsibility to their p art y and to wh at we think 

will be a good government under our ad ministration.

“ “T heir ability to remain on the job depends on the ir qua lity o f performance.”

Certainly , Bowen said, anyone who doesn't, contribute, after agreeing in writing to do s*o. has jeopardized his political clearance.

"Bu t th at state ment has to be ess entially nullified by the oth er statement that 

it has to be voluntary and that their quality of performance would be the sole 

determination of whether they rem ain.” he added.

Bowen said both parties should be devising altern ate metho ds of financing 

the ir operation s should the p atro nag e system stop.

He said Milligan had made no firing recommendations dire ctly to him.

The governor also said Eble’s prediction of reprisa ls after the election “irritates me a litt le.” No such statem ent has come from his office. Bowen said.

Milligan and Cook estimated that about 40 per cent of the collections are coming 

from highway workers.

At. the present rate, Cook said, the 1974 take should reach .$564.000—an average 

of $47,000 a month. The 1972 to tal was $237,000.

Cook said the $564,000 estima te does not take into account the ISEA-inspired 

boycott—so fa r involving the Sept. 20 and Oct. 4 paydays. In any event, he, said, 

the rebellion would not affect GOP funding of the remainin g four weeks of the 

4974 election campaign.

Eble on Sept. 27 said that with holding by 1,000 employes would cut the OOP’s 

annual collection by $150,000.

, The ISEA is 20 years old. Eble said it has almost 5,000 members—25 per cent 

of them patro nage .

[From the Herald-Argus, Aug. 14, 1974] II . . i • . • , ' • ■ • . . : • •" <■

Former Highw ay E mployes Decry Patronage System

The Ind ian a State Highway commission is operated by means of the taxpay ers’ money. We feel it is our duty, as concerned citizens, to make public 

the policies with in the Sta te Highway commission. We were clerks in the La Po rte sub-dis trict office. And the political pressures 

forced upon us we would not wish upon anyone else. We were efficient, wellmannered, and active secreta ries. We did our job well, but according to J. Millard Simcox, th at was not enough. Employes are pressured into pay ing 2 per cent of the ir bi-monthly wages to 

the Republican p arty, are pressur ed into joining the Young Republican club, and 

carrying out personal favors whic h th ey have no real choice in.

These personal favo rs are expe cted to be carried out such as : voting for the 

can did ate designated, buying and selling tickets to various Republican events, 

camp aigning also fo r designated ca ndidate s, a nd many o ther facets too numerous 

to mention. The fac t of doing your job efficiently and accurately is “a whole different ballgame.”
69

We were told in so many words th at if we did not cooperate witli the party 

and do h is favors for Idin, then we did not “appreciate our jobs.”

We feel th at the most important persons to please there at the highway arethe taxpay ers who pay our wages, not the party in power. We also feel that it is 

a shame that the Republican pa rty doesn’t have enough faith in their own 

system and par ty to let people voluntarily become interested in all the above 

mentioned, instea d of pressuring people into their beliefs.

Politics should not he used as a scare tactic. We stood up for our righ ts and 

tried to make apparen t to those concerned just how we felt. We found ourselves 

being pressured into (putting our jobs, we sat and listened to insults being thrown 

in our faces, and no one should have to he put through that.

Therefore, for the benefit of the tax pay ers and all others concerned we have 

come to the following conclusion: The Sta te Highway should he taken out of 

politics and delivered into the han ds of the Civil Service.

Renee K. Kwasny

Mary L. Mrozinski.

[F ro m th e Rep ub lic an New s, Ju n e -J u ly 1973]

J obs Open

One of the nicest things about winning elections is winning control of patron ­

age positions for the party faithful.

Many positions in various fields are now available in Indiana State Government. Applicants for patronage positions are required to get party clearance 

and initial contacts should he made with Winifred Smith, Director of Non-Merit 

Employment. Room 513. State Office Building, Indianapolis.

Right, now, Mrs. Smith has an opening for an Assistan t Directo r of the 

Social Security Disability Dete rmination Division of the Ind iana Reha bilitation 

Services Board.

Applicants preferably would have a ma ster’s degree in Business Adm inistration or oth er appropriate areas. Otherwise they should have a bachelor’s degree 

and five years disability’ dete rmin ation or closely’ rela ted experience at the 

adm inistrative level.

'I'he successful applicant will adm inister all phases of the division’s program, 

and supervise a staff of about 200. The sala ry range is from $13,936 to $17,056.

Several positions in various pa rts of the state are also open for weighmen. 

This job calls for someone 21 to 31 years of age in good physical condition. 

Weighman work closely with the Ind iana State Police and earn $220 bi-weekly.

Once experienced the weighman is eligible to become a weighmaster at $254 

bi-weekly.

EN G IN EERIN G JO B S OP EN

Engineers are needed in sta te government at salaries up to $16,328 a year.

At least six civil and agricultura l engineers are needed in the Division of 

ate r of the Department, of Na tur al Resources. The agricultura l engineers 

should have a hydrologic background.

W. M. Mohr. Director of the Department’s Personnel office, says “The employment will be conservation type in natur e.”

Engineering graduates, fresh from school with bachelors degree are employed 

as hydraulic engineers II at $10,816. With two years experience they could be 

hired at $11,778. New engineering gra duates with a mas ters degree also can 

qualify’ for a $11,778 starting pay.

Persons interested in applying for these jobs should conta ct Winifred Smith, 

Director of Non-Merit Employment, Room 513, Sta te Office Building, Indianapolis.

[F ro m th e In dia nap olis Sta r, Ja n. 16, 197 5]

GOP F und Drive Under Way

Mayor Richard G. Lugar's adm inistra tion yesterda y officially began the GOP 

Public Employes Fund Drive, a device designed to replace the old 2 per cent 

patron age deduction from the paychecks of city employes.

Fifteen persons, including departm ent heads and most of the mayor's staff, 

were given the initial opportunity to pledge, a ceremony which resulted in 

a tota l annua l pledge of $7,420, or almost 3 per cent of the combined annual
70

salarie s of those involved. The individ ual month ly amo unts rang ed from $30 

to $50.

City-county Councilman Alan R. Kimbell will adm iniste r the program and 

promised it will he free o f “coercion or pressu re of any sor t.”

Mitchell Daniels, the mayor’s press aide, rema rked, “We are extrem ely enthu sia sti c abo ut this progr am and expect it to he att ractive because of its 

volun tary na tur e.”

Pledge cards, a misnomer since employes act ual ly will sign mimeographed 

she ets of paper, will be dis trib ute d to employes thro ugh their dep artme nt or 

division supe rviso rs nex t week.

Uni-Gov Departme nt heads have been asked to dr af t a list of employes who 

should be asked to pledge, and the ref ore will decide who should be exempted 

fro m the program.

Daniels sjieculated that such pers ons who migh t be exempted includ e those 

whose sal ari es are derived wholly from Fed eral funds or who ar e worki ng in 

decidedly profession al catego ries. “Bu t th at decision rests with the supe rviso r,” 

he emphasized.

Workers will be asked to send a mont hly pledge of $10 to $50 to GOP Central 

Committee hea dquar ters in a n envelope.

Although the mayor’s office prom ised the cont ributions will not be policed, 

GOP officials will keep records of con trib utio ns and mail remi nders to persons 

who neglect to contribute.

It is unknown how many employes will be asked to participate, but Daniels 

said the city hopes to raise at lea st $65,000, the amo unt received last yea r from 

the payr oll deductions.

He commented th at in some de partme nts, employes tra dition ally have not contrib ute d and the city hopes to get a t lea st one-half or 1 per cent pledges by 

virtue of the v oluntar y natur e of the program.

He added the payro ll deduction prog ram enjoyed mar gina l success and said 

yes terd ay’s pledges by supe rviso rs equa lled 11 per cent of all con tribu tions by 

city employes last year.

The volu ntar y program will featu re a “peer-to-peer follow-up effo rt” in which 

nonsu pervi sory coworkers will vis it th e homes of employes who fail t o pledge and 

encourage the “m averick” to do so.

Kimbell said tra ini ng sessions will be held the week of Jan . 27 for persons 

desir ing to engage in the follow-up effort. The training session and all subsequent 

meetings of pro ject co-ordinato rs will be held outside the City-County Building and will be open to the press, he s aid.

Danie ls promised th at none of the follow-up counselors will thr eaten an employe with dismis sal, nor would th ey be in a p osition to do so.

He said officials hope the many small dona tions will provid e more income 

an d b ett er rela tion s t ha t the man datory payroll deductions.

City employes have received no official advan ce notice of the mecha nics of the 

prog ram since Lug ar announc ed it ’s inception in his Sta te of the City addr ess 

Ja n. 3.

Many city employes, however, are concerned th at the program, for all its preten se will be lit tle removed from the payroll deduc tion system und er which 

some work ers were thre aten ed wit h dism issal for fai lur e to pay.

Demos To End T ivo Percent Club if Tax Credits Are OK 'd

(By E dward Ziegner, Political E dit or)

Democratic sta te chairma n Willi am Tri sle r says his party is rea dy to end 

“2 Perc ent Club” funds as a source of financial supp ort if the Legislatu re will 

aut hor ize ta x cred its for political contr ibutions.

The “2 Per cen t Club,” sta rte d by the Democrats in Ind ian a in 1933 and used 

by both pa rties since, ex tra cts 2 per cent from sal aries of sta te employes who 

get the ir jobs through politics. The Republicans, holding the State house, received $ 544,00 0 from th is source in 1974.

The executive committee of the Demo cratic Sta te Committee, meeting here 

thi s week, auth oriz ed backing for Il.R . 1328, introd uced by Rep. Jeff Hays. DEvansville, which allows a tax payer to desig nate $1 of his stat e tax paym ent to 

the p art y of h is choice.
71

Hays has agre ed to an amendment draft ed by Trisler and the executive committee, allowing up to a $12.50 state tax credit for a contribution to a political 

pa rty .

Trisler called the 2 percent system “very vulnerable” and added “we feel 

strongly th at thi s (II.B. 1328) is a fa ir campaign prac tices bill.” He also said 

th at 2 Percent Club funds are “on the way out” and “we are going to have 

to look for other sources of revenue.”

Tr isl er’s statem ent that the Democrats are willing to do away with the old 

political kickback system is apparen tly the lirst time a state chairman of eith er 

pa rty has sta ted publicly it should be eliminate d. Indiana polis Mayor Richard 

G. Lugar, a Republican, ended 2 percent salary contributions from city employes at the beginning of th is year in a J an. 3 speech.

“ STEW AR DS HIP PROGRAM”

Lugar said then “the problems of the times and dangers involved” in the old 

system “dictate a fundame ntal change.” He began a system of volu ntary contributions from city employes who have the ir jobs through politics, sim ilar to th at 

used by churches.

The re also may be a suit filed soon again st the sta te 2 percent system by the 

Ind ian a Civil Libe rties Union, with support from the Ind ian a State Employes 

Association and Common Cause of Central In diana.

Charles F. Eble, executive secretary of the association, said “there is an ongoing in vestigation and a suit will be filed.”

Both p arties, when in power, have alw ays m aintaine d th at 2 percent contributions were “voluntary ” and no one was forced to give or fired if he or she 

•did not.

And las t November, when a Sta te Highw ay Departm ent employe lost his job 

for refusal to make the “contribution,” Gov. Otis R. Bowen s aid in a memorandum 

to state dep artm ent heads, and the sta te GOP orga niz ation:

“I want to reite rat e what I have said publicly several times. Job retention 

should be based on the ability to perform adequately and the quality of work 

■done.”

The highway worker got his job back.

MORE ABOUT DEMOS, 2 PERCEN T CLUB

Last summer, Eble announced th at abo ut 500 highway workers would withhold their 2 percent contributions, but it is uncertain how many did.

Hays’ bill makes it a crim inal offense for any sta te officer or sta te employe 

to directly or indirectly “indicate” to a nothe r employe tha t his job is in jeopardy 

if he fa ils to make a contribution.

It also would make it a crime to solicit political contributions on state property . Eble and Wa lter Hayden, a representativ e of the AFL-CIO union of State, 

County and Municipal Employes, say they will supp ort the Hays bill.

Sen. Robert J. Pair, Princeton Dem ocrat and minority leader in the Ind iana 

Senate, said he would favo r elimination of the 2 percent system. There is a bill 

pending in the Senate tha t, allows sta te income tax cred it up to $12.50 for political contributions, but Trisler and the Democratic Sta te Committee executive committee wan t the provision in Hays’ bill so the $1 check-off and the $12.50 credit 

can go hand in hand.

Republican sta te chairma n Thom as S. Milligan has vigorously supported the 

2 perce nt system, while Bowen also has defended it, although less strongly, and 

has said several times no one will lose his job if he refuses to contribute.

Under both parties, when they have been in control of the Statehouse, prospective employes have had to be “cleared politically ” and have been asked if 

they would contribu te to the party. While leade rs of both par ties in th e p ast have 

always stressed the system is “voluntary ,” those who refused to contribute 

generally did n’t get jobs.

Tri sle r also said the executive committee reaffirmed a previous party endorsement of direct primary selection for all nominees for sta te office, inclu ding governor, and for U.S. senator. Tri sle r said he would like to see it star t in 1076.

Direct primary bills alre ady have been intro duce d in this session of the 

Legislature, as they have in past sessions for many years. None has ever come 

close to passage.
72

[Prom th e Herald-Telephone, Oct. 8,1 975]

GO P's Approve P atronage

Indianapolis.—A special comm ittee created to recommend the futur e course 

of the Ind ian a Republican party again voted to retain the patronage system 

which brings in about a half-m illion dollars a year to party revenues.

Jam es T. Neal, chairman of the Directions ’76 Committee, told a news conference late Tuesday tha t of some 62 sep arate recommendations voted upon at the 

previous committee meeting, the only major question to be resubmitted to the 

membership was that on retention of the patronage system. The vote the second 

time was 16-7, compared to 10-8 at the previous session.

Neal said the 62 recommendations “are innovative and constructive and should 

help restore the public’s confidence in the political process.” He said some of the 

highlights of the recommendations which now go to the Republican State Central Committee at an Oct. 22 night meeting include :

Rejection of statewide slating of candidates for V.S. senator, governor and 

lieute nant governor. Nominations for these three offices are to be chosen for the 

first time since 1928 by direct prima ry rather tha n convention, beginning next 

year.

Improvem ent of the prim ary election process to include e quitable reap portionment of precincts, run-off elections and creation of candidate search committees.

Revision of the party organiz ation to include election of both the county committeem an and vice-committeeman and to designate this 184-member group of 

county GOP officials as the Republican State Central Committee, meeting a t least 

four time s a year.

Designate the present 22 dis trict chairmen and vice-chairmen as the State 

Republican Executive Committee rather tha n the st ate central committee.

Development of political issues at the grassroots through town meetings, 

seminars and door-to-door calls.

Neal said Gov. Otis R. Bowen stopped by this final and eighth meeting of the 

special committee to thank them for volunteering the ir time to development of 

the recommendations.

Republican Sta te Chairman Thom as Milligan, who had differed with Bowen 

on th e matt er of slating in advance of the direct primary, dropped by Neal’s news 

conference with information on the proceeds from the “Two Pe r Cent Club” as 

the patronage system often is called. Milligan said he would have to study the 

recommendations before he would make any comment.

But Milligan did repo rt th at the estim ated proceeds of contributions from 

governmental patronage workers to the state headq uar ters for 1975 is “about 

$500,006.” He said the 1974 tota l, in an election year, was $544,000 an d that in 

1973 i t was $438,000 while the 1972 t ota l—a yea r in which the p atro nag e system 

was temporarily “abolished” for a time by then Gov. Edgar D. Whitcomb—was 

$238,000. Milligan commented th at the 1974 contributions of government workers 

represented 26 percent of the funds raised by the party. He said “it ’s like the 

preach er being the first to pledge at an every-member canvas.”

Gates, Gates & McNagny,

Attorneys at Law, 

Columbia City, Ind., Jan uar y 2.’h 1972.

To those working for the S tate hiyhiray fro m Wh itle y County:

Most of you have been continuing to pay to the Whitley County Republican 

Pa rty a s you did before.

We inte nd to make a full and complete Report to the Office of Governor 

Whitcomb and to Mr. Lee Rush, District Highw ay Engineer on February 29, 

1972, bringing all months to date for each of you.

I believe that each of you know wh at we have asked you to send us and we 

attach six envelopes for each of you—one for each of the months from Jan uary 

thro ugh June.

If you have not brought yours to date through December, 1971, we ask that 

you include th is in your J an ua ry a nd /o r F ebruary check.

This money will in turn be delivered to the Sta te and applied to Whitley 

County’s contribution.
73

We ask for your cooperation and certainly hope that you are not delinquent 

when the list is sent to the Governor on February 29th.

Very sincerely, Robert E. Gates,

Whitley County Republican, Chairman.

State of I ndiana,

I ndiana State Highway Com mission,

Indianapolis, Ind., July 6,1971.

int er-department memo.

To: ALL EMPLOYEES

From : Ray Mendenhall, Supt.

Patronage payments are due on Monday afte r pay on Friday. Payments not 

made by Tuesday noon mean automatic dismissal.

Ray Mendenhall. 

State of I ndiana,

Offi ces of State Highway Commis sio n,

Indianapolis, Ind., May 1.'/, 1971.

To: All State highway district administrative assistants.

Fro m: Claude Hughes.

Sub ject: Two percent contributions.

On April 29, 1971 the Honorable Edgar D. Whitcomb issued the following statement, “I am directing the department heads of this administration to cease the collection of 2% political contributions effective with the May pay period.” Mr. Joe Root, Administrative Assistant to the Governor, has informed me of 

the following:

1. Collect all back contributions through April. 2. All County Central Committees may collect contributions after May 1, 1971 from their patronage state employees. This is strictly on a voluntary basis.

3. No state employee shall be responsible for this collection. 4. All fund raising activities or participations are strictly voluntary.

Claude Hughes.

State of I ndiana,

Offices of State Highw ay Com mission,

Indianapolis. Ind., February 22, 197Ih

Gentlemen : When you hired into the State Employment you were informed then, tha t each and every paycheck you received, two (2) percent was due and 

payable to the Republican Party. Now, I did not make this rule, but I have lieen charged with collecting this 

two (2) percent and turning it in. It is not fair for your fellow workmen to pay his share and you letting it go this way. I am warning you to “shape up or ship out”. This must be paid in full by March 11, 1974 or I will be in the process of making out 104’s which means 

letting you go.

Sincerely,

Roy E. Kittredge.

<S uperi ntendent.

Washington County Republican Central Comm ittee.

Salem, Ind., July 5, 197/i.

We understand you are behind with your payments to the Party, our understanding is 2% for State and 1% for County of Salary.

Will you please take care of this matter at once and pay up your 2% to State and 1% to our County Tre asurer Mr. D. Jack Maliuron at Farmers Citizens Bank 

in Salem.
When you signed up for the job th at was the agreement according to our understanding as it is a political job and we will be looking forward to your cooperation 

in this matter by keeping your payments up to date.

Thank you,

Murrel Meadors,

Chairman.

Washington County Republican Central Committee

Your application for political clearance has been processed and approved by 

the Indiana Republican State Central Committee.

This card may be used as proof of political clearance.

Patronage in I ndiana

TH E PATRONAGE SYS TEM

Volunteer—What is patronage?

Precinct Committeeman.—Patronage is a political system. After an election, 

the successful party has the choice of a limited number of jobs in the state administration. By filling available positions in the state government with loyal 

party members, i t affords the elected officials and the citizens the opportunity for 

the state government to reflect the philosophy of the present administration.

Apart from enabling the elected administration to coordinate state policy, 

what does patronage do?

Patronage serves a dual purpose. W’hile it provides a limited number of jobs 

for deserving party members, i t provides funds for the continuing operation of 

the political parties.

What operating costs are there?

Throughout the year it is important for the political parties to keep in contact 

with their members. By this contact, prospective legislation is drafted, and necessary research and planning is done for coming election campaigns. These operations are expensive.

Does patronage alone pay for these expenses?

No, but it makes it possible for the parties to budget and plan more effectively 

in order to keep costs as low as possible.

How does patronage benefit me?

Several ways, patronage involves you actively in good government. I t provides 

funds to maintain your party strength. And most importantly, the patronage system provides the political parties with many contributors of varying interests, and 

keeps the parties open.

How do I contribute?

By voluntarily contributing each pay day to the party representative in your 

department. If you are interested in a systematic monthly contribution con tact: 

Winifred M. Smith. Room 513, S tate Office Building—Phone 633—1744.

Mr. H unoate. The final witness we have today is Thomas S. Milligan, chairman of the Indiana S tate Republican Committee.

Mr. Milligan, we are pleased to have you here, sir. You have a prepared statement. Without objection, it will be made part of the record 

and you may proceed as you see fit.

[The prepared statement of Thomas S. Milligan follows:]

Statement of Thomas S. Milligan, Chairman, Indiana Republican State

Committee

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee: I thank you for the opportunity to 

testify here this morning on the matter under consideration and wish to present 

my position against the adoption of II.R. 2920.

The Congressman from Indiana’s Fourth Congressional District, the Honorable 

Edward Roush, has described this bill as the vehicle for abolishing Indiana’s 

“2 Percent Club.”

II.R. 2920 does not abolish the so-called 2 Percent Club and, in fact, does nothing to strengthen the provision of sections 600 and 601 except add $24,000 to the 

criminal sanction imposed by the existing $1,000 fine provision.

The Democrat Party of Indiana under the leadership of Governor Paul V. 

McNutt and the recently deceased, long-time national committeeman, Frank 

McHale, instituted the 2 Percent Club in Janua ry 1933, as a means of financing
75

the Democrat Party in Indiana. Subsequent adm inistrations both Democrat and 

Republican have perpetuated the practice. The 2 Percent Club is not an organization or definable body. It is a concept or political organization tha t is fundamental to the health of the two-party system in Indiana. Today, 26,000 persons are employed by State government in Indiana, and 19,000 of those employees are covered by various merit laws which can gen­ erally be described as the civil service personnel system of our state. The re­ maining 7,000 jobs are filled by the patronage personnel system. The latter is a non-merit personnel system which can effectuate changes in employment to a limited degree based upon the results of an election. The growth of government is brought about by the demand for services which the private sector cannot profitably perform. In large measure, these are services rendered to people by people as distinguished from services rendered by ma­ chinery and capital goods. The personnel costs in mental and physical health care delivery systems and the lack of profitability in maintaining highways, pris­ ons, recreation facilities, and educational institutions add more and more persons to public employment rolls so tha t one out of five jobs in the work force today is a man or woman on a payroll provided by tax dollars at some level of government. I am not urging a return to the abusive and wasteful practice of a total spoils system. I am, however, interested in the federal government not suffocat­ ing State and local government with all-encompassing restrictions tha t remove the political party’s limited role in governmental patronage. The question is not whether or not we have patronage. Every system of government yet devised by man has patronage. Someone in government makes a decision based upon their own self-interest or someone else’s self-interest regard­ ing who will be employed and where goods and services will be purchased. The question is whether or not the political parties should participate in the 

exercise of patronage. Our State law has maintained the political party ’s patronage role in the delivery of governmental services in those areas where it is deemed justified and desirable so tha t government can in fact be more responsive to people. As a result, Indiana has had a strong two-party system throughout recent years. Voters in our State know it can make a difference who wins an election because changes in personnel can bring about changes in governmental 

performance. In the 1974 general election, the national average voter turn out was 38 percent, whereas in Indiana in 1974, 48 percent of our voting age population went to the polls. This favorable comparison is the result of a strong two-party system in our state which functions in our 4,500 precincts for purposes of voter identification, registration and election day turnout. The key to this essential participatio n in government by both parties is the political clearance required before persons can be hired in the 7,000 positions of Indiana’s patronage personnel system. When a person secures political clear­ ance from his or her precinct committee persons, he or she states a political affiliation and indicates whether or not they intend to support their affiliation with contributions of time and financial resources. Having secured this pledge of support or indication of nonsupport of a particu lar political affiliation, the respective political party officials exercise their discretion in either granting or not granting political clearance. The intent of the campaign reform legislation of 3971 and 1974 was to strengthen the two-party system developed in the United States, which two-party system today stands as the single greatest innovation our government has made to the history of democracy throughout the world. Many writers and commentators despair over the future of the great two- party system, but most offer little nourishment for its weakened condition. Political parties are a form of enterprise not unlike any other valuable enter­ prise in our way of life. They must be free of undue restriction and overregula­ tion in order to function. The dynamic conduct of political enterprise has been the genesis of social change and economic progress throughout our first 199 

years as a Nation. The 2 Percent Club is simply a system whereby State and local government employees regularly donate to the party of their choice for the purpose of sus­ taining political enterprise. Those persons who are not employed by government are challenged by and join with government employees in contributing their time and money as well. The proposed legislation attem pts to place additional restrain t and difficulty upon those State and local employees who have made two choices: first, to
76

seek patronage employment, and second, to contribute their time and money 

to the pa rty of their choice.

Congressman Roush’s hill atte mpts to prevent such participation in political 

enterprise because it suggests tha t any governmental service funded in whole or 

in part by congressional action must abolish the role of political partie s in 

patronage and leave the same solely to the personal preference of a governmental 

official, elected or nonelected, or, worse yet, an employee’s association which 

Jia s absolutely no accountability to the vo ting public.

It would be my ple asure to answer questions a t th is time.

Thank you very kindly for your consideratio n of my views.

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS S. MILLIGAN, CHAIRMAN, INDIANA 

REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE

Mr. Miliagax. Thank you, Mr. Hungate. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning.

Mr. Huxgate. As we get started, let me say T anticipate that this 

gentleman will take a different view from that which we have heard so 

far today, and I am anxious tha t he receive an adequate and fair 

hearing from the subcommittee. The House is now in session and we 

may anticipate a quorum call. If we receive it, we will proceed through 

the first 5 minutes of it. I would urge the subcommittee members 

to return promptly so Mr. Milligan may have an adequate opportunity 

to set forth his views.

Please proceed.

Mr. Miliagax. Thank you very much. I have stated in a very brief 

statement the concept of political patronage and. T think, the role of 

the political parlies in retaining some participation in the delivery 

of governmental services. We have in Indiana 26,000 jobs on the payroll. In the patronage system in our personnel administration, we 

have over 7,000 jobs. The other 19,000 jobs are covered by an a rray of 

merit statutes and I would like to anticipate Mr. Russo's question 

because he has asked it of all four witnesses and it is time for an 

informed answer.

The statute which is referred to as having l>cen passed in July 

1973 applies to the merit personnel system. The 16,000—pardon me— 

the 19.000 jobs are covered by a number of merit statutes.

By specific wording in that statute, it is limited in application to 

the State merit system, which is the equivalent of the Federal civil 

service and 1 think that I would like rig ht off to clarify the misunderstandings with this subcommittee as to what the law is in Indiana.

There are only two departments that are specifically set apart and 

excluded from the opportunity to participa te in political financing. 

One department is the State police department and, by Indiana statute, 

there is a law which prohibits a uniformed member of that dep artment making a political contribution of any kind, time or money.

The second statute is a 1955 Indiana law covering the d epartm ent 

of insurance. Indiana has a number of national insurance companies 

there as a home base. There was a particu lar situation of corruption 

in that department. It was under a Democratic administration, but 

I think under the political system at the time that corruption existed 

and they adopted a law which stated it would be a criminal misdemeanor to solicit any employee or officer, even the administrator 

of the department who is a political appointee of the Governor, it 

would be a violation of the law to solicit them for a political contribution in money.
I I

Now, those are the only two statutes in Indiana which govern or 

in any way impinge upon the area tha t we have been discussing, that 

7,000 out of 26,000 t hat are in the patronage personnel system.

I would urge the members of the subcommittee-----

Mr. Hungate. Pardon me. I want to be sure I understand that. The 

statutes and criminal penalties, to which reference has been made, 

relate only to employees of the State police department ?

Mr. Milligan. Pardon me. The statute which Congressman Roush 

made reference to which has been discussed by the other three witnesses, applies only to the State merit employees. Our equivalent of the 

civil service. I t does not apply to the patronage personnel system.

Mr. H ungate. All right. When we talk about the merit system, we 

are talking about what departments?

Mr. Milligan. We are talking about a number of departments, some 

250 State agencies and we are probably talking in the neighborhood of 

200 of those departments. But those are departments which have merit 

law and they have merit employees the equivalent of Federal civil 

service on a State scale. The other two statutes which are referred to 

are basically in nonmerit departments. The State police, for instance, 

in our State is a nonmerit department. However, they have a special 

act which provides half of the force be Republican affiliation, half 

Democratic, and then they have an added provision which prevents 

them from making political contributions.

The other department which I referred to was the insurance department which is a patronage employment department, not covered by 

the merit act, and in th at department it is a misdemeanor for anyone 

to solicit them. They give-----

Mr. Hungate. Because of this scandal and special legislation in 

the past.

Mr. Milligan. Tha t is right.

Mr. Hungate. Thank you.

Mr. Milligan. I think it is very important to note that section 600 

and section 601 got on the Federal books as a result of an attem pt to 

politicize the WPA, the Works Progress Administration, in the late 

1930's and obviously the Comprehensive Employment Trainin g Act 

is designed to provide economic stimulus in a broad scale. The CETA 

employees in our State are not cleared politically. However, they work 

for county highway departments -which are political departments. They 

work for the State highway departm ent, which is a patronage department, but the CETA employees and A dministrator of the CETA 

program, funded either through a State agency or through the State 

highway commission with Federal funds, are not cleared politically 

and are not asked to donate. They can respond to general appeals 

through other sources, but they are not asked by their superiors or by 

their fellow employees to donate. The Hatch Act inhibits political activity, not political donating. It inhibits the activity of an individual 

in asking his fellow employee for a contribution.

Now, I am as much against coercion as any of the persons who have 

testified here today. However, I unashamedly am a proponent of the 

two-party system, which each of you as Congressmen are going to be 

asked to discuss and you are going to a t length next year, in the Bicentennial year, praise this singular greatest contribution of the United 

States of America to the history of democracies throughout the world 

and tha t is the development of the two-party system. The two-party
78

syste m has to hav e nourishm ent . I t s hou ld no t be fun ded th ro ug h tax 

dollars. I t sho uld be fun ded in th e same way as ou r othe r valua ble 

in stitu tio ns in the field of health , education , and talen tab le insti tutio ns 

are fun ded.

Mr. H ungate. Pa rd on me. T hat is t he second bell an d we mu st an ­

swe r a rollca ll. I would urg e the subcom mittee mem bers to re tu rn as 

quickl y as possible so th at we ma y com plete th is h earin g pri or to the 

lun ch b rea k.

Mr. Mill iga n. W ith the exc ept ion of Mr. Eble, I am the only one 

who t rave led to get he re tod ay an d I would like to com plete my tes timo ny today.

Mr. H ungate. I know some members h ave ques tions the y w an t to d iscus s with you. Th e subcom mittee ’will sta nd in recess u nt il 12 :30.

[W hereu pon, a recess was taken ]

M r. H ungate. Th e subcom mittee will be in ord er. I apologize for 

th e in terrup tio n, b ut th at is th e n atur e of this work. Some of th e oth er 

mem bers will be back as qu ick ly as they can. If you w ill, please proceed.

Mr. Milligan. I wou ld like to urge th at each one of you rea d the 

sh or t 4i/£ pag e sta tem ent a s to th e pa rty philosophy be cause I thi nk at 

such tim e t he Fed eral Gover nm ent legislates the pa tro na ge sys tem ou t 

of existence i ns of ar as pa rti es ar e c oncerned, I thi nk the y h ave ve ry serio usly imped ed the development and pe rpetua tio n of the tw o-pa rty 

syste m in this country and in th is short statem ent , the writte n sta tement, I m ake th e po int that i t is n ot th e question o f w hethe r o r n ot we 

have patro nage. Ev ery governm ental system devised by man has pa ­

tronage. Th e questio n is w hethe r or not th e politica l pa rties, the or ga ­

nized parties, are go ing to have a ny pa rti cipa tio n in patr onage.

I would subm it to you th at employees’ unio ns, as we have ha d two 

spokesmen fro m the m th is mornin g, at the present tim e ar e taking 

more in dues th an our requested—not com pulsory—our req uested level 

of contribu tions. So f ar this y ear , o f the 7,690 St ate employe es who are 

regu larly d onating, o f those 7,690 employees, 4,000 ap prox im ate ly, are 

in the pa tro na ge system. Th e 3,690 are sprin kled throug ho ut go vernment in m er it jobs who w ish to pa rtic ip at e i n fina ncing the R epublican 

P art y i n ou r Sta te.

Up to Septe mb er 30, 1975 all tho se 7,690 employees, only 350 had 

giv en in excess of $100 du rin g t h at firs t th ree q ua rte rs of th e y ear. T he 

ave rag e gif t, the average d on ation fro m public emp loye es in In dian a 

fo r the fi rst thr ee quarters of th e yea r was $47.27.

To project th at to the end of 1975, th at avera ge gif t wou ld be 

$63.03. I t would cost them on e-ha lf th at am ount, because th is Con ­

gres s—in my opinion the single gr ea test benefit to th e pub lic, to the 

pa rty system in th is country —th is Congress th ro ug h th e ta x cre dit 

enab les an in dividu al to take a 50-percen t ta x cred it up to a 

ma xim um o f $50 o n a po litica l co ntr ibuti on . So the avera ge employee 

in thi s system who is p ar tici pa ting co ntr ibute s $63 on an annu al basis. 

I t costs him $31.50 because th e ot he r $31.50 is a ta x cre dit . T hat is 

con sidera bly b elow the pr esen t level of dues t h at are req uested b y the 

In di an a St at e Employee s Associa tion, an d in my opinion it is consid era bly below th e $125 ann ua l dues of a person in the In dia na St ate 

Teach ers Associatio n. For ins tan ce, the St ate tea chers associatio n in 

ou r St ate in In dian a, ha d a to ta l incom e of $3.2 mi llion last yea r. 

Of th at am ou nt the y spent ab ou t $1.8 millio n on salaries. Bo th par-
ties p ut together, the Democrat and Republican Parties, last year expended no more than about $700,000 in salaries. As a pressure group, 

the teachers being one of those groups, expended three times in personnel costs what both parties on a statewide basis did in a general 

election year. You may recall that we did have a very hot Senate race 

in Indiana last year. I thin k too, in perspective, we have found tha t 

our funding within the Republican Party comes from persons who 

are givers. I practiced the law’ for 15 years in Richmond, Ind. I was 

a volunteer.

Mr. II ungate. Pardon me. There are some persons around Richmond who thin k you m ight have p ut too much money in the Senate 

race and not enough in the congressional.

Mr. Milligan. Mr. Chairman, I am a close friend of David Dennis. 

Tha t is why I got in politics, because of the activities of this subcommittee and no amount of—Mr. Dennis w as defeated in a close election 

but, as you know, he is a man of great legal ability.

Mr. I Iungate. Pardon me fo r interrupting.

Mr. Milligan. We did fund every request he had.

Mr. I Iungate. Good.

Mr. Milligan. I think it is really significant to place Congressman 

Roush's testimony in perspective. He talked about the engineers in the 

highway system being subject to political hiring and firing. Let's put 

tha t in perspective.

Fifty-five hundred people work for our State highway system. Of 

that amount, approximately 10 percent are engineers. There are six 

engineers in the entire system th at received their position because of 

political judgment. Those are the six engineers who preside over the 

six geographical areas in our State and implement and administer all 

of the highway policy in those geographic areas. Six out of about 500 

or more are actually placed there through politics.

I think i t is also important t ha t Mr. Roush talked about the h ighway commission changes. Yes, i t does. Those are the fou r persons, all 

four of them being part-time, who represent generally four geographical areas in the State, two Republicans and two Democrats by law 

who are appointed by the Governor, who serve at the pleasure of the 

Governor, and they are the policymaking body for our State highway 

system. Tha t is th e single largest department in State government tha t we 

have. The delivery of governmental service in highways and transportation. Of those 5,500 employees, 2,700 are patronage workers. The 

balance are merit and are protected through a number of merit 

statutes. In those 2,700 jobs, as Mr. Eble indicated, 60 percent can only be of 

one political flavor. We do have chameleons in that system. We have 

people who declare as Democrats during Democratic administrations 

and we have Republicans who declare as Republicans during Republican administrations. But unlike New York, California, when you 

register to vote in India na you register as a citizen and as a resident, 

not by party. When you vote in the prim ary you declare a party preference. That is the only way you can actually confirm a person’s political 

behavior other than th eir own declaration.

We have a strong two-party system in Ind iana and this is one of the 

basic concerns of this country. Politics is a participatory enterprise. I t
can not ex ist wi thou t the par tici pa tion of the citizen. In Ind ia na we had 

a 48-percen t tu rn ou t of our votin g-age population . Th at is 10 points 

hi gh er th an th e natio nal ave rag e wh ich was 38 percent. T he Le agu e of 

Wo men Voters, Comm on Cause, an d a numb er of publi c-s pir ited 

groups do a lot of ba nd wr inging ab ou t voter tu rn ou t but on election 

da y the 92 co unty committees in our S tate, 92 fo r the Republicans an d 

an oth er 92 fo r th e Dem ocra ts, are th e ones that ge t the vo te ou t, not the 

Leagu e of Wo men Voters or Com mon Cause or those grou ps which 

exp ect great concern about it.

In ou r S tate we have a varied economic clim ate. I n the so uth ern pa rt 

of ou r State, gen era lly, wages are lower, economic op po rtu nitie s in 

indu str ializ ed cities are muc h few er. In th e n or ther n par t o f o ur Stat e 

where 60 p ercent o f our peo ple live are some o f the b est-p aid wor kers 

in th e country , the steel indu stry an d autom otive indu stry being the 

back bone o f t h at area. But in the sou the rn p ar t of our St ate where we 

hav e basic ally ru ra l coun ties, we have scenic hills bu t no factor y jobs 

availabl e, an d ma ny pers ons hav e pa rti cipa ted in politics in th at are a 

because of the economic ince ntiv e. Whe n a pre cin ct com mitteeman 

signs up to be a precinc t com mittee man, run fo r elec tion in ou r pri ­

mary , he often h as a job in m ind th at he would like to have in o ur hi gh ­

way system. H e would like to be a u nit forem an.

I t hi nk it is i mpo rta nt f or th e vi ab ili ty for the politica l system, to a 

lim ited degree, to be able t o offer to a person who has not gr ad ua ted 

fro m e ng ine eri ng school, who ha s no t even grad ua ted fro m hi gh school, 

bu t who is willing to ge t ou t a nd do political w ork, th at a t a tim e of an 

opening, w hen an open ing came u p in a p ar ticu la r job whe n maybe he 

cou ld make $7,000, $8,000 a year, th at he be giv en the op po rtun ity to 

have t hat job. T hat job is no t held ou t to h im as a rew ard , bu t when 

the op po rtun ity comes alo ng an d we have candida tes “A,” “B ,” and 

“C ” to con sider fo r th at employment, candida te “A” has never involved him sel f in politics, cand idate “B ” is a reg istered o r at lea st he 

has a De mo cra tic vo tin g record in the pr im ary, and cand idate “C ” is 

a Re publi can precinct com mitteeman, those three individu als are 

equ ally qualif ied for the job a nd I see nothing the mat te r to giving that 

to cand ida te “C ” who, is among othe r thi ngs, a pa rtisan i n su pp or t of 

an d has w orked for the Rep ublican ad minist ratio n a nd it works exac tly 

the opposite w ay w’hen we have a De mo cra tic governme nt. I see not hin g 

the m at ter with that. In f act, it is th e only way t h at par ty w ork is in 

fact d one because all of th e t ax m one y in th e w orld w ill no t be a ble to 

pro fessional ize p olitics on the p recinc t level. I wou ld be ag ains t i t if a 

preci nct c om mitteem an took t he job o nly because he w ants to be paid, 

I th ink th at is a dim day fo r th e tw o- pa rty system in th is cou ntry.

It has been my p riv ilege to s erve on the Re publican Na tio na l Com ­

mittee since Fe br ua ry 1973 as a Re pu blica n State c hairm an a nd it ha s 

been a rou gh 3 y ear s, mostly because of d eve lopments here in W ashing ton in th e sum mer of 1972 an d mostly because, in my opinion, 

indiv iduals were wo rking outside o f t he in sti tutio na l pa rti es and were 

wo rking in cand ida te- orien ted camp aig ns where th e em phasis is on 

winn ing at all costs and th ere was nev er a con sidera tion giv en to the 

fact t hat t he alternative of losing in some con tests is be tte r t han w inning un der an y circums tanc es. T hat was t he basic stan da rd th at was 

nev er established in th at ca mp aig n.

I ha pp en to have come fro m a tra di tion in a State wher e we ha ve had 

a Republican P art y—it h as been a str on g Republican Par ty th roug h
81

the ye ars —th at In dian a is a S ta te th at goes one way o r a no ther bu t as 

a result of co mp etition an d as a res ult of bas ically un fette red op po rtu ni ty to pa rti cipa te in politics we have deve loped the initiative, we 

hav e develop ed, I think , new ide as in politi cal camp aig nin g, and in 

my idea th at is th e w ay the politica l exercise sho uld be conducted.

Th e 1971 act w as a milesto ne ac t f or th is Congress to a do pt because 

it basic all y said wh at you do in politics must be disclosed. I have no 

qu arr el with th at. T he Republic an P art y ha s r eported in ev ery re po rting p eri od since the tim e of the passage o f that act.

Th e Demo cra tic Part y in ou r St ate decided no t to re po rt in 1972 

an d 1973 an d in Apr il of 1974, the GA O went back and m ade the m file 

late reports. I th in k their p olicy was wro ng. I th in k the concept of disclos ure was lo ng in com ing and I t hi nk i t haile d a new d ay in politics. 

But th e 1974 act, and ma ny of its pro visions, attempts to prescribe 

how the political en ter prise s hould be conducted. It attempts to lim it 

and does in fact lim it $70,000 the am ount th at a c hallenger can spend 

to tak e on an inc umben t an d t h at is ve ry interesti ng when you cons ider 

th at th e Com mon Cause sta tis tic s show th at th e ave rag e spe nt in a successful race ag ain st a congressio nal incum ben t was $140,000 and this 

Congres s adopted exa ctly 50 cen ts on the do lla r fro m wha t th ei r research ind ica ted it cost na tio na lly to upset an incumbent, and th at is 

giv ing th e adv antag es of incu mbency to the incu mbe nt.

So I th in k when we em bark on a course of act ion t hrou gh Feder al 

legislation, we severely ov err egula te the politica l en ter prise , I think 

we str ike at a very basic an d fund am en tal freedo m in th is society. I 

th in k a person should be fr ee to joi n the In di an a St ate Employ ees Associatio n. He should be fre e to tel l his precinc t com mitteem an for 

eit he r pa rty to go where he wa nts to te ll him to go. A t t he same time, 

I wa nt an employee who feels stro ng ly about his p ar ty affiliation to be 

able to con tinue t o su pp ort his par ty and tell the In di an a State Em ­

ployees Association he does no t wish to pa y th ei r dues. I th ink th at 

is free dom o f choice.

I abhor some of the lette rs t hat have been introduced here this m orn ­

ing. Th ey do no t reflect t he Go vernor’s policy. Th ey do n ot reflect my 

policy. Th ey are ind ivi du als who a re pa rtic ip at in g in a large solic ita ­

tion effort and who hav e res orted to intim idation th roug h coercion, 

job pre ssu re—you are going to be fired if you do no t pa y up by such 

a date—bu t I wou ld like to rem ind you th at the four witnesses th at 

preceded me did no t cite one rec ord o f dism issal, did n ot s ub sta ntiate 

one dis charg e fro m public emplo ym ent fo r failu re to pa y a pledged 

contr ibu tio n.

The a rti cle in the pa per, which quo tes me as say ing my recomm end atio n as a St at e chairma n would be to dischar ge a pa tro na ge emp loyee 

who ple dged to su pp ort his p ar ty fina ncia lly if in fac t he faile d to do 

it, is a correct s tate ment. I wa s chair ma n o f th e R epublican S ta te Committee. I w as speak ing as a per son who h as done m ore askin g fo r g ift s 

fo r th is po litica l en ter prise th an any othe r person s in th is room and 

I feel th at a person w ho says, “I wa nt th e part y’s help in ge ttin g my 

job and I ’m willing to he lp th e par ty financia lly,” is brea king a 

ple dge when once the y are on the pa yroll know ing full well they w ill 

no t be discha rged fo r failu re to pay, th en b lithe ly ign ores th ei r commitm ent.

As fa r as I am concern ed, th at is a fa ir com mentary on th at indi vi du al ’s a bi lit y to keep a pledge.

C2-663— 76----- 7
82

There is no enforceable contract. There is no condition. We do not 

hire any people. We simply give political clearance in a limited number of situations and, as my recent testimony indicates, I am not a dvocating retu rn to pre-Jacksonian days of unlimited spoils system. 

The abuses of tha t system are inherent in all patronage exercises in 

government. They are also inherent in elected officeholders who demand a contribution and tell their employees not to donate to the 

party in the State.

I could go on and on because I do feel strongly about the ability of 

the parties to continue in existence under the present circumstances, 

and that ability would be hampered by undue and overregulation and 

basically the thr ust of Mr. Roush's bill.

At this time I would like to answer any questions tha t the subcommittee has.

Mr. Hungate. Thank you for a very helpful statement. You get in as 

much as possible in a small amount of time. I am glad I don't practice 

law in Richmond, Ind. Between you and Dave Dennis I would never 

win a case.

Mr. Milligan. He is a tough one to go up against, I will say.

Mr. Hungate. I don't, think you would lose more than your share.

I thought your comments reg ardin g some of the Watergate problems were very appropriate. There was a good deal of political inexperience that led to some of those occurrences and personal, rather 

than party, lovaltv. Your comments are well taken.

Mr. Russo.

Mr. Russo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Fir st of all, let me say, Mr. Milligan, that I am glad that you set 

the record straight as to why there hasn’t been any enforcement of the 

law. I was deeply concerned about the fact th at there hasn’t been any 

enforcement. It is good to know th at the law doesn’t cover those emplovees and if there were violations that did cover them, that the 

Indiana Attorney General would then step in. That is a relief.

Mr. Milligan. Our attorney general has no prosecutor authority. 

That rests with our prosecuting attorneys throughout the State.

Mr. Russo. That is how it is in our State too.

I have a little problem reconciling some of the comments tha t you 

made. You are for freedom of choice and you are against compulsion. 

However, at the same time, I read some of the comments attributed 

to you tha t if an applicant agrees, is hired, and later breaks that commitment by refusing to pay, he has jeopardized his political clearance 

for a patronage job and would be terminated.

You see, the question that you ask in your questionnaire for political 

clearance, and you o ught to put it this way, if you really want to be 

above board and to a point with every applican t th at comes in, would 

you be willing to contribute. You should pu t, you are required to contribute regularly to the Indiana State Republican Central Committee, because that is in effect what you are saying. This way when a person signs that form, he is advised as to what his responsibilities are 

and if he doesn’t want to do it he shouldn’t sign the form.

I thin k your form is slightly misleading when you say would you 

be willing, because again th at indicates tha t is a freedom of choice and 

tha t he doesn’t have to if he is not willing to do so at a later date, and 

if you are interested-----
83

Mr. Milligan. If I may interject there.

Mr. Russo. Sure.

Mr. Milligan. With all due respect to the Congressman’s interpretation, that form is the patronage clearance form. It is not an employment application. We will clear any number of people for a particular 

job because we are not an employment agency and I have been a precinct committeeman. I am presently county chairman and State chairman. I don't hire anybody except people on my payroll at State 

headquarters.

The question is, quite properly, would you be willing to contribute 

to the Republican Party. That is both financial and time. They can 

answer yes or no.

• Now, the conclusion to that is-----

Mr. Russo. I believe you said-----

Mr. Milligan [continuing]. Is whether I as a county chairman 

would give them clearance if they answered no, and I would not give 

) them clearance if they were answering no. Frankly, they have no constitutional righ t to a State job.

Mr. Russo [continuing]. No question about that. I am assuming-----

Mr. Milligan. And secondly, they have no constitutional right to 

a patronage job.

Mr. Russo [continuing]. I am assuming he answers yes and later 

on is not able to meet his commitment of the 2 percent tha t he is required. A t th at point, from all the things tha t we have here, the man 

is on the line.

Now, the difference he has in the various organizations, for example, the teachers association and the other associations tha t have testified here this morning, is that he can join, pay his initia l fee, and then 

later on if he wants to quit, he can quit the organization and still maintain his job.

Mr. Milligan. I would like to point out a very significant difference. 

With regard to the State employees association, they get theirs by payroll deduction. lie receives his annual budget from the auditor of the 

State of Indiana.

Mr. Russo. Assuming I as an employee wanted to quit and called the 

payroll people that I am no longer a part of th at organization, I want 

that payroll deduction eliminated, they can eliminate that.

Mr. Milligan. That is correct.

Mr. Russo. And he still keeps the job he has, is that correct?

■ Mr. Milligan. That is correct.

Mr. Russo. Which is not the case of the 2 percent.

Mr. Milligan. Let’s be very clear. I stated tha t th at witness or any 

other witness has not told you or given you any evidence of any person 

l being discharged for this reason. These people continue in employment as well. That is not the way it was 30 years ago, however. These 

people were terminated. I thin k that was abuse and that is not the 

policy of this administration. They are not terminated.

Mr. Ri tsso. I think one of the problems-----

Mr. Milligan. Rut the ABC’s—basically the person makes the 

pledge. The transaction where he refuses to pay is basically a violation 

of his pledge. Now, that is a collection transaction. He has already said 

he is willing to contribute. You go around and collect.
Mr. Russo [continuing]. Now he is unable or unwilling to contribute. 

His expenses are higher or greater. He can’t afford the 2 percent, quits 

their union or their organization and he can’t make any payments. He 

is having a hard time making his payments.

Mr. Milligan. Right. And of the 7,000 people in that patronage system 4,000 do regularly. We regularly ask them to keep their pledges, 

regularly ask them to pay.

Mr. Russo. This letter in 1974 by Mr. Kittredge says:

W hen yo u hi re d in to th e S ta te em ploy men t you we re info rm ed th en th a t each 

an d ev ery pa yc he ck th a t yo u received , tw o (2 ) pe rc en t was du e an d pa ya ble to 

th e Rep ub lic an P art y.

Now , I di d no t m ak e th is ru le , but I ha ve been ch ar ge d w ith co lle cting th is 

tw o (2 ) pe rc en t an d tu rn in g it in.

It is no t fa ir fo r yo ur fel low w or ke rm en to pa y hi s sh ar e an d yo u le tt in g i t go 

th is way. I am w ar nin g yo u to “sha pe u p or shi p ou t.”

This is a little more coercion than saying the State employees association. when you tell not to make a payroll deduction, I don’t—I 

can’t afford it and they say OK. You made t hat pledge but you can't 

keep it up. They don't lose their job.

Mr. Milligan. Recall that part of the letter.

Mr. Russo. There are subordinates under your political organization, 

as other political organizations, who are misguided as to what they 

are supposed to do. That is the reason you have the problem you have 

today. I agree with you about the philosophy of patronage. The only 

thing I don't agree with you on, if they don't know it is compulsory, 

they ought to be told. If it is not compulsory and he can't make the 

obligation and then you say I am going to tire you. I think this is a 

detriment to the political system. I don't know how you can be proud 

of the fact that 48 percent turned out in Indiana.

Mr. Milijgax. It is 10 percent higher than the national average and 

I am proud of that.

Mr. Russo. To me tha t is nothing to be proud of. And back home in 

my district it was the same thing, less than a 48-percent turnout. That 

ought to tell the political parties in this country that something is 

wrong with this system because 52 percent of the country is staying 

home. The electorate doesn't like the way the political system is handled and the way things are going. You are against coerced payments 

and you as the leader of the Republican Party in Indiana ought to do 

something about it. Maybe if you can’t do it, maybe the locals can't 

do it, whether they are Republican or Democrat-----

Mr. Mili .igan. We have conducted precinct workshops in response 

to every request in our State over th e last 2 years, some 50 training 

people to register, intelligent people to vote, and getting out the vote, 

and I assume that is the way the work has to be done to get people to 

the polls. You can't sit here and legislate people going to the polls. 

I think 48 percent is very good.

Mr. Russo. I t is a sad day when the Federal Government has to step 

into every local problem, too.

I don't have any more time.

Mr. Hungate. Mr. Hyde.

Mr. Hyde. I just want to say—to try to modify my own remarks. 

I am less outraged than Mr. Russo because I have seen what his party, 

which has written the book in Cook County in terms of economic
85

press ure and political patro na ge, has done. They give new meaning 

an d dim ension to the term . An d I would like to have my good friend 

an d colleag ue talk to ce rta in Illino is politic ian s, who are abou t to 

have a big dinner. Di str ibution of those tickets among his employees 

is a ma rve l o f efficiency.

Mr. Russo . And the re is no coercion. T hat is the am azing thing 

ab ou t it all.

Mr. H yde. Not much.

I have no fu rthe r com men ts or time.

Mr. H ungate. I am pleased t hat we have been able to keep pa rti sa n 

politics out of our hea ring s. I was af ra id we migh t not.

Let me ask just a few questions.

The De partm ent of Ju sti ce in its testim ony talked about—do you 

hav e a copy of its pr epare d s tatem ent ?

Mr. Milligan. Yes. I do. Mr. C hairm an.

Mr. H ungate. It tal ks about the work rel ief and rel ief purp oses 

lim ita tio ns and the enforcement of section 601. Unless the Federal 

fund s went for work rel ief or rel ief p urposes, the Ju sti ce De partm ent 

is powerless to enforce the Fe de ral law.

Let me see i f 1 understand you c orrectly. Ar e you sayin g th at 7,000 

out of 26,000 o r 27.000 employees are patro nage employees?

Mr. Milligan. Cor rect. Those are peop le who have to get a political 

cle ara nce in order to be hi red .

Mr. H ungate. T here are ap prox im ately 20,000 employees who are 

in what you call th e m eri t system.

Mr. AIilligan. Rig ht.

Mr. H ungate. As f ar as Fe de ral fun ds are concerned, if thing s are 

prop erly fun cti oning now, thes e employees aren 't patro nage.

Air. Milligan. Th at is correct.

Mr. H ungate. AVhat I am tryi ng to ge t to is thi s, do you have 

any o bjec tion to the e xpa nsion of the coverage of these sections beyond 

work rel ief and relief p urp oses? Wo uld t hat affect you, do you know?

Air. AIilligan. I was very fa m ili ar wi th those two investigation s 

because in Ju ly 1972-73, Ge neral Ac counting Office anno unced from 

here ou r violation before giving us a copy of their rep ort, and the 

Federal Burea u of Inve sti ga tio n launch ed a field pro ject in Au gust 

of 1973 and they interviewed ap prox im ately 25 employees in the high ­

way syste m. They sent the r ep or t into AVashington and there was no— 

the y conclud ed no evidence was turned up of any vio lati on o f section 

690 and section 601. Those were the two sections the y were partic ularly 

looking at.

The AVashington office asked them to go back into the field and expand th ei r sample by 100 perce nt to see if they could find a violatio n. 

So t hey went back out and interv iew ed anoth er 50 persons in November and December of 1973 and af te r 5 m onths of pro dding , on May 2, 

1974 we have the response over Ilen rv Petersen ’s sig natur e a lette r 

prep ared by Tho mas AIcTiernan. Ch ief of the Fr au d Section, and 

this is p art of the story th at Congressman Rou sh did not give you a nd 

I would like to presen t it to you at th is time.

Air. H ungate. AVithout objection, we will mak e th at a part of the 

reco rd a t t his po int.

[The document refer red to f ollow s:]
86

U.S. Department of J ustice,

Washington, D.C., H ay 2, 191}.

Mr. Thomas S. Milligan,

St ate Chairman,

India na liepubli can Sta te Central Committee,

Indi anapoli s, Ind .

Dear Mr. Milligan : This will respond to your letter, date d April 10, 1974. in 

which you requested inform ation regarding the disposition of the Criminal 

Division’s inve stig atio n regarding the Ind ian a Republic an Sta te Committee's 

fund raisi ng progra m.

On Jul y 26, 1973, the Comptroller Gene ral refe rred to the Attorney General 

a case involvin g alleged viola tions of Fed era l election laws by the Sta te of 

Ind ian a as well as the Republic an and Demo cratic Partie s of Ind iana. As you 

know, the Comp trolle r’s referr al ind icat ed th at applicants for Sta te patr ona ge 

positions were frequent ly required to engage in politic al activity as a condition 

precedent to obta ining employment. It also indic ated that, once hired, patr ona ge 'b

employees were requested to contrib ute an amou nt equal to two perc entu m of 

th eir sal aries to the political party whose elected represen tativ e most directly 

adm inis tere d the executive dep artm ent in which the ir positions were located.

Fina lly, the Com ptroller’s refe rra l noted th at the sala ries of a number of Sta te 

patron age employees were provided for, in whole or in par t, by Federal statutes.

An in vestiga tion of this ma tte r was ini tia ted by th e Crimin al Division. During 

its course, the possible applicability of a number of Fede ral criminal statutes, 

inclu ding Sections 242, 600 and 602 of Title IS, United States Code, were 

evaluate d.

The Criminal Divisio n’s inves tigation has been completed and the decision 

ha s been reac hed tha t, based upon the pa rti cu lar facts and circu mstances 

bro ugh t to lig ht by the investigation, no prosecutive action is warran ted. However, in view of the U.S. Civil Service Commission’s probable concurrent juris ­

diction over the subj ect allegations, this matt er has been refe rred to the Commission for review under the provisions of Titl e 5, United States Code, Section 

1501, et seq.

Sincerely,

Henry E. Petersen,

Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division.

By Thomas J. McTiernan,

Chief, F raud Section.

Mr. Hungate. Thank you.

Mr. Milligan. And that letter states tha t the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation investigated and the Justice Department concluded that 

the Indiana 2-percent system did not violate section 600 and section 

601. The proposed amendment in mv opinion-----

Mr. Hungate. They found no violations ?

Mr. Milligan. Right.

Air. Hungate. Go ahead.

Air. AIilligan. The proposed amendment in my opinion will not 

make any difference as far as work or work relief projects. That part g

of the amendment will not make a defense because their investigation clearly was on the basis that it was not limited to that. They 

knew the highway departm ent was not involved in work relief and 

tha t is where they spent 6 months investigating. What they were 

looking at. whether or not there was coercion because of Federal funds 

being in highway and they enforced and they investigated and evaluated enforcement in that situation without any thought of limitation 

on work relief or work relief programs. So, in my opinion, that will 

not change their present enforcement policy.

Air. Hungate. If that definition were changed as the bill proposes, 

so fa r as you see it right now, it wouldn’t change the way they pragmatically approached it in your State.

Air. AItliagan. That is correct, and I think the Congressman's toting 

of this bill to do away with this system has something to do with the 

fact tha t the Sentinel has been opposed always to the 2 percent system,
87

whether it is Democratic or Republican. Presently, they are very much 

opposed to its administration in the system in Fort Wayne under a 

Democratic mayor, and Congressman Roush has received the support 

of this system because he has won a number of times.

Mr. Hungate. You called for evidence of any firings based upon the 

failure to keep a pledge or make a contribution. I low far back are you 

going ?

Mr. Milligan. Well, T was citing the fact tha t they have yet to introduce today any sort of—th at is, essentially the Fed eral Government 

investigated this for 8 months and then concluded tha t there were in 

fact no firing because under 601 deprivation is deemed to mean discharge and to deprive a person of employment, and that is exactly what 

they were looking for.

Mr. Russo. Mr. Chairman, would you yield ?

Mr. IIungate. Yes, I yield.

Mr. Russo. I was wondering what the figure would be on transfers 

to other parts of the State as a result of not paying the 2 percent. 

Any figures on that ?

Mr. Milligan. Well, I am not involved in the personnel administration in those departments and you would be—you I assume could 

subpena the personnel records and they would ju stify why transfers 

were made. I don’t know why they were made and of course the Federal statu te does not in fact inhibit transfering an individual. It talks 

about depriving him of employment.

Mr. Russo. I mean that may be an area we can look into.

Mr. Milligan. Does the Federal Government want to get into a dministering a total personnel policy ?

Mr. II ungate. I believe Mr. Eble and Mr. Marshall are still here. 

Let the record show that they are. We have indicated certain evidence 

that would have time to come in. Perhaps on or before the 21st of 

November, we could have a list of the number of firings and perhaps a 

number of transfers which they know of, within each of the last 3 

years. Th at would be 1972,1973, and 1974.

Mr. Milligan. To put tha t in perspective, unless the ISEA , Indiana 

State Employees Association, are going to furnish with the personnel 

records, you only have their allegation tha t a firing or transfer took 

place for this reason. I thin k is a—judicially I think tha t is rather 

hazardous.

Mr. II ungate. You have raised the issue that they have not named 

anybody they could assert was fired for tha t purpose.

Mr. Mili ,igan. Certainly.

Mr. Hungate. Now, we in Congress don’t believe all we are told. 

We don’t have to accept everything, but I think in view of that challenge I would be interested in knowing whether anyone is able to f ur ­

nish any of names of persons they allege-----

Mr. Hyde. Mr. Chairman, perhaps staff might, if they were given 

a few names. It should not be too difficult to have someone from our 

staff go out and check the personnel records in Indiana.

Mr. Milligan. And I would also urge the committee it is possible 

to look at the field reports of the FB I. They worked on this very issue 

for 8 months and I am interested in saving taxpayers’ money.

Mr. II ungate. All right. I think staff would do well to look at that. 

It should be available to us and it might be helpful.
88

P art of th is legisla tion , we are tol d, would make un ifo rm the 

pu nishmen t in cam paign -re lated offenses. Th e principa l pa rt, I think, 

raise s the pe na lty from $1,000 to $25,000. W ha t do you th in k about, 

th at ?

Mr. Mill iga x. W ell. I th ink th at is an ex orbitant penalty . I do n't 

see the logic of jus t makin g i t un ifo rm wi th some o ther section. A pe rson who could be prosecuted un de r section 601 an d section 600 conceivably could be a perso n making $5,000 a year, a mino r po litica l f un ctio na ry who g ets completely out of bounds and st ar ts promi sin g a job 

or co ntract to an ind ividual in exchan ge fo r a contr ibu tio n. Te chnically he could be prosecu ted un de r this and I th in k a $25,000 fine is 

com pletely unr easona ble. 1 do n't th in k th at is a nece ssary de ter ren t. 

1 think $1,000 is sufficient.

Now, if we are talking abo ut th e hea d of one of t he major oil compan ies, Am erica n A ir Lines, or som eth ing like th at , we are talking 

about a d iff eren t ty pe of defe ndant.

Mr. II uxgate. As I un de rst an d th e legisla tion, it is not a m an da tory 

maxim um but a maxim um. Th e fine could be any am ount up to $25,000. 

I do n't know’ how long we have ha d the $1,000 maxim um. One th ou sand 

dollars to da y an d $1,000 10 yea rs ago a re different a mo unts of money. 

1 think we W’ould agree on tha t.

Mr. Milliga x. I d on't th ink this b ill should rise o r fall on th at point.

Mr. I I uxgate. Bu t you th ink $25,000------

Mr. Mill iga x. I s e xorbitan t.

Mr. I Iuxgate. It is your view t hat is ex orb ita nt.

Mr. Milligax. Righ t.

Mr. II uxgate. I think Mr. Rus so or someone inq uired o f a n ea rlier 

witness a bou t a m an da tory 1-year sentence. W ha t is yo ur view on tha t?

Mr. Milligax. My view7 on th at is t hat th at is unreasona ble. T th in k 

the jud ge—you know we have a judic ial syste m whi ch I th in k is 

charg ed with th at responsibility. I am unaw are of any pro secutio ns 

un de r section 600 a nd section 601 in ou r S tate in t he la st 20 y ears since 

I have been inv olv ed in the pra cti ce o f law. It might be in teresting to 

see wh at the enforc ement experie nce has been and wh at type of sentences and fines been mete d out an d th at would he more of a gui de to 

the com mittee 1 th in k on those pro vision s th an my view’s on th at .

Mr. IIuxgate. Counsel might be w’ell ad vised to con tac t t he J us tic e 

De pa rtm en t as to the n um ber an d outcome of prose cutions u nd er these 

two sections in th e last 20 years.

There was also discussion as to the pr ef at or y clause of sections 600 

and 601; th e ques tion is w hethe r “elections” sh ould be defined i n section 

601 so it means the same as it does in section 600. Do you hav e any 

view’s to express on th at ?

Mr. Milligax. I d idn't pay pa rtic ula r a tte ntion to t hat par t o f th eir 

testimo ny. Th e part of their tes tim ony th at talked abo ut as req uired 

by law. I th in k the point is w ell -ta ken there because the loophole th at 

the y sug gest is a ra th er gross perversio n of i t and th at someone could 

by ordinanc e or law7 make t his a leg al req uir em ent a nd I th in k th at the 

refe rence by th e recodifie rs to sim ply say o ther wise, t ha t was pr obably 

somewh at care less, so I th in k it could be narro we d to th at situatio n. 

Bu t I do n't have an o pin ion on th at .

Mr. IIuxgate. Tha nk you very much. We a pprec iat e yo ur w ait ing .
89

Counsel ?

Mr. H utchison. Are you recommending that the subcommittee not 

report out this bill, that it be defeated ?

Mr. Milligan. My major purpose in coming down here was to add 

some enlightenment as to how it works in perspective. I realize the witnesses who were appearing were going to be all one-sided and I don’t 

have a grea t disagreement, with the proposed amendment by Mr. 

Roush. It does not begin to do what he claims it will do and so I do not 

have a disagreement if the subcommittee saw fit to report the bill out 

favorably. 1 was advised by Congressman Dennis and also minority 

Counsel Smietanka th at they felt the legislative record should include 

the party's view on this since most of the references by Mr. Eble and 

the other persons testifying were against me personally or the Republican State Committee and I am only too happy to come down here 

for th at purpose.

I don't have a great feeling as to whether or not this bill should be 

reported yes or no and that is the reason for my appearance.

Mr. Hungate. All right.

Mr. Smietanka.

Mr. S mietanka. No questions.

Mr. H ungate. Any furt her questions?

Mr. Milligan. I will tell former Congressman Dennis that I was 

treated most cordially. He was to come down with me and then had an 

appearance he couldn’t avoid.

Mr. H ungate. You tell him I would have done better but I lost my 

best lawyer.

Mr. Milligan. All right. Tha nk you very much.

Mr. H ungate. The subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m. the subcommittee was recessed subject 

to call of the Chair.]

*
■

f
APPENDIX

Department of J ustice, 

Washington, D.C., October 29, 19T5.

Hon. William L. Hungate,

House of Repr esent atives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Congressman : This will reply to your request to Mr. Pauley , tra nsm itte d throu gh staff, following his testim ony on H.R. 2920 last Tuesday , October 22, 1975, for an acco untin g of all cases which have been brou ght by thi s Dep art­ men t und er 18 U.S.C. GOO and 18 U.S.C. 601, both of which were original ly enacte d in 1939 as pa rts of the Hatch Act, Public Law7

 53-252.

We have review ed our records concerning the enforcement hist ory of these two sta tutes quite carefu lly, and have been able to locat e only one case brought 

und er Section G01, an d two case s br ough t un der Section 600. The two brou ght under Section 600 ar e United Sta tes v. Malphurs, 41 F. Supp. 

817 (S.D. Fla. 19 41 ), vaca ted on othe r ground s, 316 U.S. 1, and United Sta tes v. 

He rbe rt Kalmb ach, which was brou ght by the office of the Special Pros ecutor 

last year.

The Malphurs case involved an offer of promotion, which was made to an em­ ployee of a pro ject funded by the Work Prog ress Adm inistratio n, which was conditioned on h is obtaining the votes of several person s fo r certain candidates in a Flo rida prim ary election. The distr ict cou rt dismissed the indic tmen t on the groun d th at the criminal sections of the Hatch Act, including both 18 U.S.C. (J00 and 601, applied only to gene ral elections. Thi s construction of the sec­ tions impeded the enforcem ent of Section 600 unt il the enactmen t of the 1971 Fed era l Elect ion Campaign Act. Public Law 93-2 25, which made thi s section governed by the general definition of “election” contained in 18 U.S.C. 59 1(a ) and which amend ed the tex t of this definitio n so th at it expressly includ ed all 

forms of electio ns for the first time. The problem in Malp hurs is still pres ent 

with respect to 18 U.S.C. 601, which as we indicate d to you in our testim ony is 

stil l not subj ect to the definitional section.

The Kalmbach case, as you are proba bly awa re, involved the pr osecution of a campa ign fund rai ser for promis ing an amb assa dorial post to a solicitee on the condition th at the solicitee contribu te a sub sta ntial sum of money t o supp ort the re-election of form er Pres iden t Richard Nixon. Kalmb ach pleaded guil ty to the 

charge and received an eight-mo nth pris on sentence. The sole Section 601 case, to the best of our knowledge, was United Sta tes v. 

Dedof, 52 F.Supp. 57 (E.D. Pa. 19 41 ), involving char ges that the defe ndan ts thre atened relief recipients with terminat ion of the ir benefits if the y did not engage in cer tain political activities. The indictm ent was dismissed as techn ically defective in th at it was couched in the disjunctiv e and thu s faile d to give adequa te notice of the violation s alleged. We believe t hat th is repr esen ts a c omplete accountin g of prosecutions, althou gh the re may have been one or two more cases which old files fail to reflect. Of course, we have conducted a n umber of inves tiga tion s u nde r both of these sta tutes over the years which have not resulte d in the filing of criminal charges. In most cases this has been a result of the fact th at the politic al activi ty in question cente red arou nd a prim ary election of some sor t (a problem which has since been rectified with respec t only to Section 6 00 ), or because the matter involved de ­ priv ation of employment and the benefits in questio n could not be classified as “re lief” in natu re. As indicated in our testim ony, this la tte r consi deration would immedia tely foreclose prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 601 as it pres ently reads, while prosecution unde r IS U.S.C. 600 would be possible only if the political activ ity was a condition preced ent to an offer of “non-relief” Fed eral benefits. We trus t th at thi s info rma tion will be useful to you. If we c an be of furth er 

assistance, please do not hes itate to advise.

Sincerely, Richard L. Thornburgh, 

Assistant Attorn ey General.

(9 1)
Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives, 

Washington, D.C., November 24,1975.

Hon. William L. Hungate,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice,

House Judiciary Committee,

Washington, 1).C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : I am enclosing a copy of the letter I received from the 

Ind iana Attorney General’s office rega rdin g any prosecutions of violators of 

Indiana sta tutues prohibitin g cer tain political requirements of sta te employees. 

My October 21 letter also asked for a list of the category of workers protected by 

such legislation.

Best personal regards.

Yours sincerely,

J. Edward Roush. 

J/em&cr of Congress.

State of Indiana,

Office of Attorney General,

November 20,1975. Hon. J. Edward Roush. M.C.,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, I).C.

Dear Sir : I have your letter dated October 21, 1973, addressed to Attorney 

General Sendak. which was referre d to me for consideration and reply, and your 

lette r ad dressed to me which was dated November 12, 1975.

The matter of legitimate political activities by American citizens in various 

walks of life is protected by the Bill of Rights and the equal privileges and immunity sections of the Federal and Sta te Constitutions.

Such activities by F ederal civil service and State merit service employees have 

some guidelines such as the Hatch Act and the Indiana Act to which you refer.

Under the Indiana law, however, the Attorney General has no jurisdic tion to 

prosecute alleged violations of such laws. Therefore, you would have to contact the individual local prosecutors to obtain the information you desire.

Very truly yours,

Sheldon A. Breskow,

Chief Counsel.

Common Cause,

W as hi ng to n, D.C .f Nov em be r 20 ,197 5.

Hon. William L. Hungate,

Ch airm an , Hou se Ju dic ia ry Subco m m it te e on Criminal Ju stic e, 2157 Ray bu rn

Office Hu ilding , W as hing ton. Il.C .

Dear Chairman Hungate: On beh alf of Common Cause. I would like to submit this letter fo r inclusion in the subcommittee’s hearing record on II.R. 2920. a 

bill to amend sections 000 and 601 of Title IS. United States Code, relating to 

the grantin g or deprivation of benefits provided for or made possible by any act 

of Congress, on the basis of political activity. Common Cause strongly supports 

this legislation introduced by Rep resentativ e J. Edward Roush of Indiana.

For some time, Common Cause has been greatly disturbed by the longstanding 

prac tice in Indiana of basing decisions to hire, fire or promote sta te government 

employees on the willingness of the employee or prospective employee to allow 

a portion of his or her wages to be contributed to the political party in power. 

As an organization deeply involved in efforts to improve the performance of 

government. Common Cause finds no place for consideration of an individual's 

political affiliation in determining his or her fitness to obtain or hold a government job. Unfortunately, Ind ian a’s infamou s 2% Club, which has existed since 

3933 und er both Democratic and Republican state adm inistrations, is built upon 

this very concept of political loyalty ra th er tha n upon efforts to at trac t the most 

competent, most highly qualified people to public service.

The patronage system continues to flourish in Ind iana in large measure because of the 2% Club. A 1973 re port of the General Accounting Office found th at 

approximate ly 60% of Indiana State government employees are patronag e employees. Moreover, th e report pointed ou t that not only is patronage employment 

primarily dependent on political affiliation, but th at “patronage collections are 

an imp orta nt source of financing f or political par ties.” The report estim ated that
93

un der th e Re pu blican Gov er no r in 1972, pat ro na ge co nt ributions to th e Re pu blica n S ta te C en tral Com mitt ee ag gr eg at ed ap pr ox im at el y $375,000, or 46% of 

th e to ta l co nt ribu tion s rece ived by th e C en tral Co mm ittee. Sim ilar fu nd ra is in g 

acti vit ie s ha ve bee n co nd uc ted by Dem oc ra ts wh en th ey ha ve he ld th e office of 

Gov erno r.

Co mm on Ca use cer ta in ly reco gn izes th e im po rtan ce of we ll-financed part y 

org an iz at io ns in our pol itic al proc ess. Nev ertheles s, th er e is no ju st ific at io n fo r 

g ra n ti n g em ploy me nt o r a sa la ry in cr ea se to an in di vi du al , or de pr iv in g him or 

her of em ploy men t or a p a rt of his co mpe ns ati on , on th e ba sis of hi s or her 

will in gn es s to mak e po litica l co nt ribu tion s. We sh ar e th e se nt im en ts ex pr es se d 

by Rep. Ro ush in h is te stim on y t h a t :

•‘S ta te s m us t ha ve th e ve ry be st qu ali fie d peo ple th ey ca n a tt ra c t to pu blic 

se rv ic e; th e people de serv e no les s. Pol itic al lo ya lty sh ou ld no t be th e cri te ri on 

in hir in g pu blic em plo yees nor sh ou ld lack of po litica l lo ya lty be th e cr iter io n 

fo r fir ing th em .”

R ep re se nt at iv e Rou sh 's hil l wo uld st ri ke a su bst an tial blow to th e 2% Cl ub 

an d wo uld pr ot ec t th e in te gri ty of jobs an d pr og ra m s which are in wh ole or in 

p a rt fe de ra lly fund ed , by pro hib itin g an yo ne fro m pr om isin g or de pr iv ing a per ­

son of a fe de ra l benefit on th e b as is of th e be ne fic iary 's politica l ac tivi ty . Secti on 

600 of T itle 18 U.S.C. alr ea dy mak es it an off ens e to prom ise a benefit, prov ided 

* fo r or mad e po ssible in wh ole or in p a rt by an y Act of Co ng ress, on ac co un t of

po litica l ac tivi ty . Secti on 601 pro hi bi ts th e de pr ivatio n of be nefits on th e ba sis 

of po litica l ac tivi ty , hu t is re st ri cte d in its scope to benefits prov ided fo r or mad e 

po ssible by an y Act of Con gress ap pro pri ati ng fu nd s fo r wor k re lief or re lief

pu rpos es. Th e D ep ar tm en t of Ju st ic e ha s testified th at in th eir op ini on th is lim ­

it ati on to fede ra lly ap pro pri ate d “r el ie f” be ne fits op er at es as a bar to pros ec utio n in ca se s whe re a be ne ficiar y is de pr iv ed of no n-welfare be nefits du e to som e 

pol itic al co ns id er ation. Se cti on 1 of II.It. 2920 wo uld br oa de n th e pr ot ec tio n of 

Se ctio n 601 to co ve r an y pr og ra m or act iv ity rece iving Fed er al fin an cia l ass is tan ce , by el im in at in g th e re fe re nc e to wor k re lief —w hic h is not co ntaine d in 

section 600—an d by ad di ng th e wor ds “in wh ole or in p a rt” —w hich ar e alre ad y 

in se ction 600—a ft e r th e phra se “m ad e po ssible” .

Thu s, by lia ssin g II .It. 2920, th e Co ng ress wi ll he br in gi ng se ction 661 into lin e 

w ith cu rr en t fe dera l sp en di ng pr ac tice s. Sinc e th e section w as origi na lly en ac ted 

in th e 1930’s, th e us e of fe dera l fu nd s in st ate and loca l go ve rn m en t pr og rams 

ha s vas tl y ex pa nd ed . To da y su ch di ve rs e st ar e an d loc al pro gra m s as he alth care, 

tr ansp ort ati on. ho us ing an d la w en fo rc em en t—am on g man y oth er s— rec eiv e some 

m ea su re of fe der al fund in g. By el im in at in g th e lang ua ge in secti on 601 wh ich 

re str ic ts it s ap plica bi lity to re li ef or work re lief pr og ra m s, II .It. 2920 wi ll in su re 

th a t section 601 refle cts cu rr en t re al itie s, an d will en ab le th e Ju st ic e D ep ar tm en t 

to bri ng su it in th e fu ll ra ng e of in st an ce s whe re fe der al sp en di ng cr ea te s a 

fe dera l in te re st .

Co mm on Ca use comm ends Re p. Ro ush fo r re ac ting to th e ex pe rie nc e in his 

ho me sta te of In dia na unde r th e 2% Club by in trod uc in g II. R. 2920. We als o 

wan t to comm end th e Su bc om m itt ee on Crim inal Ju st ic e fo r co nd uc tin g hearings on th e bill, an d we ho pe th a t it will ac t fa vora bly on th e bil l in th e nea r 

fu tu re so th at th e fu ll Ju d ic ia ry Com mittee an d th e enti re Hou se wi ll be ab le 

to m ove on th is i m port an t le gi sl at io n ea rl y ne xt ye ar . Ena ct m en t of H .R. 2920 wi ll 

go a long way to w ar d en di ng th e insidi ou s pra ct ic e, in In dia na or els ew here, of 

£ ex tr acti n g a po rti on of an em ploy ee ’s wag es as a pre-co nd iti on of e mploy men t or

conti nuance of em ploy me nt. We be lie ve th a t H.R. 2920 is an im port an t ste p 

to w ar d em ph as izin g co mpe tenc e ra th e r th an po lit ics in mak in g go ve rnmen t 

per so nn el decis ion s.

Si nc erely,

h David Cohex,

Preside nt.

o

1