Evening star., 1944-09-27
Ruling on PAC Held
Controdieted by Law
Biddle Flouted Plain Language
of Statute, Writer Contends
BY David Laurence

BY David Laurence
Attorney General Biddle has cleared
the National Citizens Political Action
Committee Of all possible violation of
the Federal Corrupt Practices Act. That
is, he has cleared it for the purposes Of
the Justice Department.
But has the Attorney General cleared
1t from the point of view of American
public opinion? The people can read
the plain language of the statute Just
as we'll as the Attorney General. and
can make up their own minds whether
the Roosevelt administration is deliber-
ately violating the provisions of the law
because by so doing it can derive bene-
fits which will mean votes to help it
keep political Office
Here is the language Of the Federal
Corrupt Practices Act, which forbids
contributions" by labor unions as we'll
as by corporations:
THE term contribution includes a
gift. subscription, loan, advance, or de-
posit of money, or anything Of value,
and includes contract, promise, or
agreement whether or not legally en-
forceable, to make a contribution"
But are the labor unions contributing
anything Of value" when they con-
tinue to pay the salaries of labor union
officials who actually give their time
and energies in whole or in part to the
work of the National Citizens Political
Action Committee?
Strictly speaking and to conform to
the law, any person who works for the
National Citizens Political Action Com
mlttee-now conceded to be a political
committee as defined in the law-must
be wholly on the payroll Of that COM
mlttee and cannot receive any part Of
his or her compensation from a labor
union.
Record Of Salaries.
Has the Attorney General examined
the record of salaries paid to the work.
ers on the National Citizens Political
! Action Committee, and does he find that
IN every case the salaries are being paid
out Of funds Of the NCPAC?
The Attorney General does not answer
| these questions in his letter but issues
blanket whitewash in the following
language. 1T seems clear that the per-
sons who are now making individual
contributions to the National Citizens
/ Political Action Committee are not labor
organizations. First prerequisite for ap-
! plication of the statute is therefore
absent"
The members Of the NCPAC are
almost identical with labor union or
ganization personnel in several in
stances. These men have been getting
salaries from the unions heretofore
Have these salaries now been cut of
completely during the time they work
on the National Citizens Political Action
Committee? If So then the labor unions
OF which they are officials are not
making contribution The acid test is
whether anything of value" Is being
contributed by the labor union, and the
Attorney General does not enlighten the
public clearly on whether he has investi-
gated these factors.
The Attorney General rather IN
geniously turns away from another angle
OF the case TO which Senator Moore
tention. The Attorney General says
You assume that by the bare act OF
approprlating or allocating the money
TO their own committee the constituent
unions of the CIO have violated the
| Hatch Act even though in fact no money
was gwen for the use of particular can
dldates or committees in violation OF
the terms of the statute. This conclu-
sion assumes that a union or corporar
ton commits felony if it merely sets
up on It's books a fund allocated to
| political purposes, even though the fund
Is in fact never used in the manner pro-
| hibited by statute. . The definition
Of the term contribution in the Hatch
I Act, given its widest meaning, shows
that Congress intended that something
of value must be devoted to prohibited
political purposes before the penalties OF
the statute apply
Law Contradicts Him.
But the law contradicts the Attorney
General 1t says that the term con
! tribution' includes "a contract, promise
or agreement, whether or not legally
enforceable, to make a contribution"
Clearly the ALLEGATION of a specific
fund, earmarked for political purposes,
is in itself an action that the law forbids,
because If it is unlawful to use corporate
or union funds to make a contribution,
it is unlawful to set it aside and take it
out of the treasury of the union or the
corporation and lay it aside for ultimate
use. The mere presence of a reservoir
Of money that can be used in an emer-
gency and Of which any political COM
mittee has knowledge would appear to
constitute potential contribution anal
ogous to "a promise or agreement,
whether or not legally enforceable"
Congress knew full well what it was
doing when it wrote that prohibition.
1t knew that often fund-raising efforts
in political campaigns are underwritten
by those who do not themselves con-
tribute but do set aside funds to assure
the repayment of loans after election
1t is obvious that any funds set aside
before election could be used after cleo
ton to pay deficits, and that's why even
the ALLEGATION of funds by corporations
or unions would seem to be unlawful
Reproduction Rights Reserved)
Divorce Desired