Court Opinion

ID: 9638409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:43:15.477768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:06.350959
License: Public Domain

JONES, Chief Judge,
dissenting, in-, which LITTLETON, Judge (Ret.) joins:
We are unable to agree that the substantial purpose of the League was “carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation.” Rather, we think its primary or almost exclusive purpose was that of enabling women to capably discharge the duties that the new voting privilege had placed upon, them.
It is to their lasting credit that they did not take their new obligation lightly, but sought to prepare themselves to discharge this trust intelligently.
We believe the majority opinion fails to recognize the vast difference between-attempting to promote general policies- and principles of government that may be implemented by legislation or by other practices and customs that will inure to the benefit of all citizens and tend to promote sound government; and the drive or lobbying for legislation that has-for its purpose the serving of the interests of a limited or selfish group. The-one may or may not result in legislation. It may be a drive for a treaty, or it may be merely evidenced by a change in the habits, customs, and thoughts of' a people, while the other has no such. *384over-all objective, but seeks to secure certain privileges for a limited group. We have not the slightest doubt it was the latter type which the Congress sought to put under the ban, and not those who seek to promote the principles of good government, and who seek no advantage to themselves that will not flow to all citizens.
Nearly all the legislation passed by the Congress recognizes this distinction. This is illustrated by antilobbying legislation.
Lobbying is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition, page 1086, as follows;
“ ‘Lobbying’ is defined to be any personal solicitation of a member of a legislative body during a session thereof, by private interview, or letter or message, or other means and appliances not addressed solely to the judgment, to favor or oppose, or to vote for or against, any bill, resolution, report, or claim pending, or to be introduced by either branch thereof, by any person who misrepresents the nature of his interests in the matter to such member, or who is employed for a consideration by a person or corporation interested in the passage or defeat of such bill, resolution, report, or claim, for the purpose of procuring the passage or defeat thereof. But this does not include such services as drafting petitions, bills, or resolutions, attending to the taking of testimony, collecting facts, preparing arguments and memorials, and submitting them orally or in writing to a committee or member of the legislature, and other services of like character, intended to reach the reason of legislators.”
Practically all the restraining legislation in matters of this kind has to do with representatives or concerns who are seeking to influence the passage of legislation that will be of direct financial interest to themselves or to the concern or association which they represent. Apparently there has never been any thought of restraining or limiting the activities of any organization that has for its primary purpose the dissemination of information that they believe will inure to the benefit of all of the people of the Nation.
An enlightened citizenship is the only hope of a free government. No country that is steeped in ignorance can either become or remain free. How can people retain their rights if they do not understand them? That requires continuous effort. Otherwise the country will sink back to dictatorship and despotism and individual rights will be lost.
Human freedom has involved a long struggle. Through despotisms, aristocracies and dictatorships, ambitious individuals and groups have sought to restrict the rights of men. Wars have been fought and many men and women have lost their lives in the struggle upward toward the plains of liberty. These wars have cost seas of blood, broken hearts, and billions of treasure. Our forefathers wrung from the hands of a foreign tyranny the unhindered right to be free.
But it is not enough to win liberty. It must be maintained by “eternal vigilance;” otherwise it will be lost. The only way a free people may remain free is through the exercise of the ballot—and then only if it is intelligently exercised. We grow used to the precious things of life and take them for granted. With all our boasted progress, not much more than half our citizens exercise the privilege of the franchise. Much needs to be done in arousing the interest of citizens in perpetuating the principles of free government and in protecting our heritage. Few organizations in our land have made it their primary business to arouse interest in voting and through research and open discussion promote not only the exercise of the ballot but its use in an understanding manner.
We cannot believe it was the intention of the Congress to deny an exemption to an otherwise qualifying organization merely because it seeks in some instances, in a wholly unselfish manner, to trans*385late principles of government into the form of legislation, when the organization will derive no special benefit from that legislation. The language does not require it, and certainly the interests of the Nation would not be served if this organization should cease to take an interest in public affairs.
One of our great universities prints on the flyleaf of its annual catalogue these words
“A cultivated mind is the guardian genius of Democracy. It is the only dictator that freemen acknowledge, and the only security which freemen desire.”
To have an organized force with 700 local chapters in every part of this broad, big country that is devoted to stimulating an interest in the problems of government is a distinct national asset.
In our system of government worthwhile policies grow out of the customs and habits of the people in the various communities that make up our country. As a rule men do not make laws. They merely discover them. When in the course of progress the customs and habits of a people and sometimes their methods of doing business change, the wise legislator crystallizes these changes into law so that the conduct of all may be brought into line with the wishes of the majority, subject always to the limitation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. This is the essence of free government.
The operations of plaintiff organization follow this pattern completely. Its activities, ideals, and moral fibre grow out of the local chapters and local communities. It is like the limbs and roots of a tree. Without the life-giving flow of strength and vitality from these local chapters, the trunk of the tree would be nothing but dried up sap—and as such would wither and die.
Several cases have been decided in which local or State leagues have been held exempt. Liberty Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. United States, D.C.W.D.Ky.1954, 122 F.Supp. 759, in which a number of cases are cited.1
The majority draws a distinction between the local chapters and the national organization, but as a matter of fact they are as intimately linked as the law of supply and demand; they are part and parcel of each other. The central organization is but the national arm of the local chapters. It is the channel or clearing house through which the local chapters receive information as to the pros and cons of principles and policies of government and to which they may after discussion convey their position. This information may be again referred to and, exchanged with other local chapters before the position or wish of the various *386chapters is finally determined. The record shows that more than 90 percent of the time of local chapters is taken up with matters of local and community interest. The record does not disclose a single one of the organizations—local, state, or national—seeking to influence legislation that would be of peculiar financial benefit to themselves.
Even if it were determined that the efforts of the organization to influence legislation were of the type intended to be put under the ban, our findings presented by the trial commissioner who saw the witnesses face to face and who went through the record, and whose findings we have adopted, rather clearly show that the legislative activities were not a substantial part of the League’s activities. The seven primary activities of the organization are set out in findings 22 and 23, and in summarizing the hours spent in various types of activity the following percentage is shown:

Percentage Hours of Total

Organization ..... 65,758 46.28
Finance .......... 14,383 10.14
Administration ... 19,150 13.50
Public Relations ... 11,092 7.82
Program ......... 28,255 19.92
Voters Service .... 2,468 1.74
Legislative ....... 737 .52
Total ........ 141,843 199.92

Percentage Hours of Total

28,255 90 Program ....
2,468 8 Voters Service
787 2 Legislative ...
Total ............ 31,460 100
Subsequent findings show the amount of activities of the various local and state chapters and the percentage of time and effort devoted to legislation. The various activities of the League are disclosed in detail in the findings.
We are unable to escape the conclusion that the League of Women Voters is a completely unselfish organization operating almost exclusively in the public interest. It is clearly not the type of organization which the Congress meant to exclude from the benefits of the tax-exemption section. The activities of the League are in no sense partisan. It is almost wholly educational in its nature. It undertakes to present both sides of every issue to its various integral branch organizations, does not undertake to prejudice the issue but undertakes to reflect the sentiment of the various local bodies which have been reached after thorough consideration and discussion. A very small part of the activities of the organization as a whole is devoted to influencing legislation and none at all to influencing legislation that would inure solely to the benefit of the national organization and its integral chapters.
We would hold that the activities of the organization as a whole bring it within the exemption clauses of section 812(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and that the plaintiff therefore is entitled to recover.

. The phrase “and no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation” first appeared in the Revenue Act of 1934, § 406, 26 U.S. C.A.Int.Rev.Aets, page 239. The bill which eventually evolved as that revenue act contained no such limitation as first introduced and passed by the House. It was added by the committee in the Senate being first placed in the section, 23(o) (2), dealing with deductions allowed individuals on contributions to charitable organizations. It was then placed in the estate tax section, where it now appears. The purpose in so doing was stated in the Senate Report as follows:
“This change is necessary to carry out the policy adopted in section 23(o) (2).” [Senate Report 558, p. 46, 73d Cong., 2d Sess.]
What was the policy intended by the placing of the limitation in section 23 (o) (2) ? The committee reports shed no light, but the discussion on the Senate floor when the amendment to the House bill was brought up indicates that organizations such as plaintiff were not to be removed from exemption. This discussion lends support to our belief that organizations such as those which act in the general interest of the public, for example those organizations urging adoption of the child labor amendment to which specific mention is made in the discussion as distinguished from those groups which advance the personal interest of the contributor, are not intended to be denied exemption. Cong.Ree. Yol. 78, Part 6, pp. 5861 and 5959.

. Even if the first four of the above items are eliminated, leaving the three categories of program, voters service, and legislative activities, the percentage would be as follows: