Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1948-02-12
RidicuIe Of Congress
MayHave Been Aim Of
Murray Indictment
"Phony" Issues Seen
- In U. S. Action on Clio
Political Expenditures
b. David Laurence

r The Department OF Justice may
have mischievously drafted the in
dictment Of Philip Murray and the
CLIO in order to bring Congress into
ridicule for its law prohibiting ex-
penditures by labor unions In po-
litical campaigns.
The departments public state
nnent that an issue Of freedom of
the press is involved Is In line with
the propaganda from labor unions,
which have emphasized this false
issue to the extent that even per-
sons outside labor unions take it
seriously as such a threat. But the
issue is phony on its face, and the
departments public comment re-
yeals an effort to sabotage a law
with which it is plainly out of SYM
pathy.
The indictment of Mr.. Murray is
worded so as to place an emphasis
on something lawyers familiar with
the precedents of laws regulating
elections never thought would be
hanned-namely, the right of any
regular publication, whether issued
by unions or corporations, to ex-
press its views on political Or other
matters.
Cites One Point.
There is only one section Of the
indictment which really presents a
legal point worthy of attention by
the courts. This relates to the in
curing of specific expenditures
from labor-union funds to print
and transport extra copies OF po-
litical statements that have already
appeared in newspapers or period
icals and to distribute the same.
= 1t would be easy to circumvent
the Federal Corrupt Practices Act
II either a corporation or labor
union could spend millions of dol
lars distributing reprints from
regular publication or periodical.
It is the activity outside OF the regu-
lar subscription list that opens a
looptole which the law sought to
cover.
It certainly could not be proved
that 9 regularly published period
ical or newspaper, whether owned
by a labor union or corporation,
makes a special expenditure when
1t prints an editorial or political
statement. The law covers specific
ally only expenses incurred in con-
nection with an election. 1t is the
height of absurdity for any one to
contend that printing an incidental
statement in the regular course OF a
publishing operation constitutes a
specific expenditure for election
purposes.
Indictment Held absurd"
?. What Congress sought to do, as is
plain from the legislative record,
was to prohibit the use of corpora
ton or union funds for specific
election expenditures. This is q
Constitutional right of Congress 30
as to prevent the excessive use OF
money in political campaigns and
the bribery of any part of an cleo
ton constituency to influence the
outcome.
What may not be generally real
lied is that the section in the TAFT
Hartley law which is being used to
trump up an absurd Indictment
against Philip Murray was taken
from a bill that emerged from q.
report made unanimously-by mem
bers Of both political parties-after
an investigation of abuses IN cam
paign spending.
Congress was told that to prohibit
contributions was not enough and
that it was necessary to ban ex-
penditures for political purposes by
both labor unions and corporations
because 1t was difficult to draw a
line between an expenditure and a
contribution.
When the Taft-Hartley bill was
drawn and the sections relating to
campaign expenditures were copied
from recommendations OF another
committee, some persons mistakenly
exaggerated the meaning of the
section. This correspondent insisted
at the time the law was passed that
no indictment Of labor union or
corporation on that basis would
stand up in court, and now reite-
rates that prediction.
Test Was Needed.
A test by the Department OF JUS
'tice has, Of course, been needed.
But the test should have been on a
clear-cut point-namely, whether an
expenditure specifically made for an
election purpose such as the dis
tribution of handbills or of reprints
Of campaign material was or was
not subject to the Congressional
power.
The Department of Justice may
contend that in phrasing the indict-
ment 1t has covered both points but,
or its face, the department has
merely played Philip Murrays po-
litical game and raised fictitious
issue so as to help the union cam
paign to discredit the Taft-Hartley
law.
II 1t is unconstitutional for labor
unions to be prohibited from SPEND
ing all the money they want to
influence elections and from spend
ing 1t out of union funds and not
from funds especially collected from
individual members for disburse-
ment by political committees, then
1t is equally unconstitutional for
corporations to be similarly pro-
hibited from using their corporate
Finds to influence elections. The
whole thing then gets back to where
IL was before the Federal Corrupt
Practices Act was passed In the
first instance.
To say Congress may regulate
contributions made BY corporations
but not by labor unions and that
Congress may prohibit specific ex-
penditures by corporations for cleo
ton purposes and may not prohibit
specific expenditures for similar pur-
poses by labor unions would be to
make a mockery Of President Tru-
mans civil-rights axiom of equal
justice under law"
The CLIO News and any union
newspaper or corporation publica-
ton can publish all the political