Evening star., 1948-03-17
Judge Moore's Ruling
Could Bring on Orgy
OF Election Spending
Congress Seen Helpless
To Curb Propaganda
If Decision Is Upheld
By David Laurence

II Judge Moore's decision that
Congress does not have power
under the Constitution to regulate
expenditures in national elections
Is upheld by the Supreme Court,
the way is opened to the greatest
orgy Of slush-fund spending to In
fiuence elections that this Nation
has ever witnessed.
Anybody-whether q rich corpo-
ration or multimillionaire or q
labor union with millions of dues
collected will be able to spend
money for propaganda or anything
else involving expressions Of opin-
ions about candidates, and pre-
sumably Congress will be unable,
by legislation, to stop such undue
pressure.
For several decades the courts
have recognized that free elections
can be held only If limits are placed
upon the amount of money that
can be spent in elections. There
are dozens Of provisions Of law
relating to such restrictions.
But year after year evasions
occurred. For long time Congress
prohibited political contributions
by. corporations. Then, during war
time. under the Smith Connally
Act, it prohibited such contributions
by labor unions. Finally, after an
exhaustive investigation, a Senate
committee, composed of Republic
cans and Democrats, reported
unanimously that to prohibit "con-
tributions" to political committees
was not enough and that it was the
spending Of money which had to be
restricted II elections were to be
free.
Amplifies Statutes.
Congress, while considering the
Taft-Hartley law, picked up the
recommendations of the Senate
committee and wrote a provision
amplifying the existing statutes on
corrupt practices. But when Judge
Moore holds that this provision is
invalid for labor unions, it means
that the corporations and every
body else are likewise free to spend
without limit, all under the excuse
that the Constitution guarantees
freedom OF speech and Of the press.
It Is interesting to note that the
Supreme Court had no such COM
junction about the freedom-of-
speech clause when 1t upheld
lower court ruling forbidding an
employer to speak to his employees
during working hours prior to a
collective bargaining election. The
theory Of the court has been that
the First Amendment does not pro-
tect against the right of Congress
to regulate labor relations
Judge Moore's decision is full of
inconsistencies and fallacies. Thus,
he says that Congress has only the
right to prohibit specific acts of
corruption in elections and that to
spend money to express views on
elections Is not subject to regula-
ton as to amount or anything else.
This is indeed novel, for it would
strike down the right Of Congress
to prohibit political contributions
or to regulate their amount. This
is because there is very little diff
ference between a contribution
made to a political party organiza-
ton or committee by a corporation
or labor union and a contribution
made to group or organization
disconnected from party organiza-
tions but set up to conduct propa-
ganda campaigns.
Regulation Of Fund Use.
Actually Judge Moore must have
overlooked the fact that to forbid
labor unions or corporations from
spending the funds of their men,
bers or stockholders, respectively
for political campaigning does not,
as he says, deprive them of their
opportunities to participate in cam
paigns or express their views. They
can do so as individuals now, and
always could. But union dues
come from closed shop" members,
who would lose their jobs if they
W pay dA1A - oAAA
union shop" members, who would
be subjected to penalties If they
did not allow their dues to be used
for political purposes. To- misuse
these dues is to deprive individuals
Of their right to withhold expendi-
lures for political campaigns when
they themselves might have diff
ferent political views than the
unions.
II Congress cannot regulate the
use Of trust funds collected by
corporations and labor unions for
one purpose and used for another,
then Congress has lost much OF the
constitutional power which the
courts have hitherto bestowed on
the national legislative body.
Judge Moore is a New Deal judge.
He was appointed by the late Presi-
dent Roosevelt in 1941. For many
wears he was a member of law
firm which has been and is counsel
for the United Mine Workers in
West Virginia. Judge Moore's de-
cision reads like the briefs filed by
the CIO. If that kind of law is
upheld by the Supreme Court, then
Federal controls over corruption at
the polls may be said to be at an
end, and the clock will be turned
back to the wickedness which was
witnessed in the early part Of this
century and which gave rise to the
present provisions Of the Federal
Corrupt Practices Act.
Reproduction Rights Reserved.l
| r ASS /