Evening star., 1952-03-14

Third Of Series.
told the Senate Elections SUBJ
committee:
The people as a whole are being
fooled =. They believe they are
being protected when they really
are not"
This echoed earlier sentiments
from Congressional committees.
A Senate committee found In 1916
that "racketeering and corruption
flourish amid this artificially en-
couraged confusion" A House
report last year found the election
laws "a hodgepodge of inconsis-
tency and confusion" and IAN
invitation to criminal violation" !"
State Laws Vary.
If the election laws of the States
were uniformly fraud-proof and
required an accounting of all the
money contributed to. candidates,
the national situation would be
less serious. But the State laws
vary from requiring fun reports of
all moneys spent. and making the
candidates responsible, to re-
quiring nothing at all.
Studies of State election laws
made by the Legislative Reference
Service and a new election law
Iguidebook prepared under the di-
lrection of the Senate Elections
subcommittee show:
Four States-Illinois, Rhode
Island, Louisiana and Nevada
require no statement Of campaign
expenditures. The laws of Kansas
apply only to candidates for State
Offices. 81 ~ q
-Four StateS-Arkansas, Idaho,
Vermont and Washington-require
statements of campaign expendi-
lures only after the primary.
Names Not Mentioned.
And, according to the Legis-
|lative Reference Service the names
of donors are not mentioned as
part of the reporting requirements
in Arkansas, California, Idaho.
New Mexico, South Carolina, YER
mont and Virginia.
That means that millions of dol
lars can be dumped into those
States with complete anonymity.
The situation in some other
States is little better because only
the candidate has to make a re-
port of gifts and expenditures and
not his political committees. Un-
less the State laws are a lot stiff
fer than the Federal ones, and not
many of them are, the candidate
can get away with reporting only
a small fraction of his gifts. The
explanation: He says he didn't
know who was raising money for
him and how it was being spent.
That is the setup that makes
reports to the clerk Of the House
and Secretary of the Senate from
candidates for House and Senate
seats total farce.
Gimmick Thwarts Law.
The Federal election laws say
each House and Senate candidate
must file lists Of every contribu-
ton received by him or by any
person for him with his knowl-
edge and consent" in aid of his
candidacy or to influence the elec-
ton. The girnmick is the phrase
knowledge and consent" Here's
how it works:
Committees are set up-House-
wives for Jones, Oil Workers for
Jones, Labor for Jones, Citizens
for Jones, Doctors for Jones, etc.
All Of them are raising and spend
ing money. Candidate Jones says
they weren't set up with his
knowledge and consent so the Sky's
the limit on what they can raise
and spend without Candidate
Jones having to report the name
of a single donor.
Limit Set On Spending.
The Federal election laws set
a limit on what candidates can
Spend-much too low limit, most
candidates contend. But the limit
is artificial, too, because of the
exemptions. The candidate doesn't
have to count what he spends for
travelling or subsistence expenses,
for postage, stationery, writing or
printing, for distributing letters,
or posters. or for tele-
graph or telephone service. AS one
legislator put it, candidate could
call every voter in the State and
write them a personal letter and
it wouldn't be counted in what
he could spend on an election.
Billboard and newspaper adver-
tiSing expenditures are not exempt
expenses. The law doesn't men,
tion radio and television because
it was written in 1925. But these
are not insurmountable expenses.
A u