Court Opinion

ID: 9443280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:16:41.940391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:26.316216
License: Public Domain

BAZELON, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Edward R. Rumely, the appellant, was ordered to appear before the House Select Committee on Lobbying Activities 1 to testify with regard to the Committee on Constitutional Government2 of which he is Executive -Secretary. The Buchanan Committee’s mandate was
“ * * * to conduct a study and investigation of * * * all lobbying activities intended to influence, encourage, promote, or retard legislation * * 3
It was interested in learning how the COG and Rumely — both registered under the *179Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act4— operated, where the organization’s funds came from, etc., in order to determine whether there was anything in its activities and those of other organizations which might require revision of existing lobbying laws.
As a part of this investigation, the Buchanan Committee sought to ascertain whether so-called purchases of books and pamphlets from the CCG for amounts of $500 or more were really disguised contributions — a device to evade those sections of the Lobbying Act which require “any person * * * who * * * receives money * * * to be used principally to aid * * * [t]he passage or defeat of any legislation by the Congress of the United States [or] [t] o influence, directly or indirectly, the passage or defeat of any legislation by the Congress of the United States” 5 to report to the Clerk of the House of Representatives “the name and address of each person who has made a contribution of $500 or more.” 6 This phase of the inquiry revealed that shortly after the statute was enacted and the appellant and the CCG had registered thereunder the CCG had changed its pattern of financial support. Its new policy was to reject and return “contributions” in excess of $4907 unless the remittor designated “the material purchased and the direction of its distribution.” 8 Rumely admitted that this policy was adopted “[t]he moment the [lobbying] law went into effect,” 9 and because “[w]e didn’t want to get into the position of reporting our contributors.”10
It was in the light of these admissions and the Buchanan Committee’s desire to learn the financial sources which were making possible the vast operations of CCG11 *180that it asked Rumely for the names of “purchasers” of $500 or more of CCG’s books and pamphlets. Apparently the Buchanan Committee wanted to question these people in the process of further establishing that some were not bona fide purchasers but merely heavy contributors to the lobbying activities of which CCG was the focal point. It was at this juncture that Rumely and the Buchanan Committee came to loggerheads. Because Rumely refused to disclose the names requested, he was afterwards cited for contempt of Congress.12
The scope of a congressional committee’s investigation is limited by statute to matters pertinent to the inquiry authorized by Congress. And “[t]he question of pertinency * * * [is] one of law.”13 The trial court instructed the jury as a matter of law that the Buchanan Committee
“was a validly constituted committee of Congress; that said committee had jurisdiction over the matters under consideration; that the records and information requested, as alleged in Counts 1 and 6, and the question asked, as alleged in Count 7, were pertinent thereto * * * ”14
The jury then found Rumely guilty of contempt of Congress.
Before discussing the broader issues presented by this appeal, I turn for a moment to consider a narrower aspect of the case. It has to dó with the Government’s reliance upon the fact that both Rumely and the CCG had registered under the Lobbying Act to establish the pertinency to the inquiry of the information sought by the Buchanan Committee.15 In rebuttal, Rumely showed that he and the CCG had registered under protest. He did not claim that registration was induced or coerced by any governmental source. I agree with the trial judge’s ruling that proof of registration was a sufficient basis for establishing the pertinency of the information sought. I think it reasonable to conclude that by registering Rumely and the CCG recognized the possibility, at least, that their activities might be found to constitute attempts “[t]o influence, directly or indirectly, the passage or defeat of any legislation.” It can hardly be said that the Buchanan Committee was without power to inquire into the operation of the Lobbying Act and to determine whether the Act does or should reach the activities of a registrant. Clearly pertinent — in fact, vital — to such an inquiry was the information concerning the source and pattern of CCG’s financial support.16
*181Although the fact of registration alone was sufficient to establish pertinency, the Buchanan Committee Report Citing Edward A. Rumely which was made a part of the record in this case, makes it clear that the questions which Rumely refused to answer were pertinent to the legislative inquiry. In addition, the Buchanan Committee hearings, which were only partially introduced in the trial record, support this conclusion.17 Since judicial notice can be taken of congressional hearings, there is no reason why an appellate court “should not advise itself from outside the record of such facts as appear to admit of no genuine dispute”.18 As will appear, the evidence adduced before the Buchanan Committee fur nishes both supplementary and independent grounds supporting the trial court’s ruling that the information sought was pertinent to the inquiry.19
Turning now to the broader issues of the case, appellant says, in substance, that (1) the House Resolution20 did not undertake to authorize any inquiry to which the requested information would be pertinent; (2) the requested information was beyond the constitutional limits of legislative inquiry; and (3) compulsory disclosure of this information would violate First Amendment rights.
(1) This court says that, by definition or common understanding, the words “all lobbying activities,” which House Resolu*182tion 298 authorized the Buchanan Committee to investigate, refer only to “representations made directly to the Congress, its members, or its committees.”21 I think this definition unduly narrow. Lobbying has had a broader sense for at least forty years. The court’s constricted concept of lobbying provides the premise for its conclusion that questions with regard to indirect lobbying techniques are not pertinent to an inquiry said by the court — but not by Congress — to be limited to direct representations to Congress. Since I think the court’s basic premise incorrect, I must reject the conclusion built upon it.
As early as 1913,
“* * * House and Senate investigations * * * gave the first thorough airing to what might be properly called modern lobbying as we know it today. The Senate investigation was prompted by President Wilson’s charge that an industrious and, as he called them, ‘insidious body of tariff lobbyists,’ was spending money without limit in an effort to create an impression of public opinion contrary to some of the chief items of the administration’s sponsored Underwood tariff bill.
******
“Each committee in its own way also concluded that even in 1913 lobbying consisted less of personal appeals to Congressmen than it did of organized efforts to mold public opinion and influence Congress by means of the artificially created public pressure.”22
This trend, already apparent in the early part of the century, has since become accelerated. Present day means of communication, which have changed modes of living and the course of history, have also relegated the restrictive concept of direct “contacts with legislators” as a means of influencing legislation to the horse and buggy era. The appellant himself, in a pamphlet entitled “Needed Now — Capacity for Leadership, Courage to Lead,” deprecated the value “of such old lobbying techniques as ‘noisy delegations * * * which buttonholed legislators’ and ‘stunts which attract some popular attention but persuade no Congressmen.’ ”23 Congress has long recognized that modern media for mass communication have brought with them the need for vigilant inquiry.24 And in House debate on the very resolution under which the Buchanan Committee acted, Members of the House (1) specifically mentioned the CCG as being a large lobbying organization and (2) indicated that one aim of the investigation would be to determine how organizations, in reporting under the Lobbying Act, were allocating their expenses between legislative lobbying and “nonlegislative” or “noncongressional lobbying.”25 *183Any concept of “lobbying activities” which ignores the realism of the day is an archaic one, bottomed either on outmoded dictionary definitions or on judicial constructions drawn from unrelated contexts.26 I think Congress directed the Buchanan Committee to investigate indirect as well as direct lobbying techniques and that the information requested from Rumely was pertinent to such investigation.
(2) To say that modern methods of lobbying cannot be inquired into by virtue of the same power which permits legislative inquiry into the older and less effective methods would b® to stifle the legislative process. Yet I understand appellant’s contention to be that the information demanded by the Buchanan Committee was beyond the constitutional limits of legislative inquiry because no valid legislation could deal with indirect lobbying.
It is of course true that the area for legislating with respect to the whole lobbying problem is subject to constitutional limitations. This is merely another instance of the price we' pay for the protection of things we deem far more valuable. But constitutional boundaries cannot be marked by the shotgun argument that no valid legislation could possibly emanate from a legislative inquiry to which the information sought here would be pertinent. As the Second Circuit said in United States v. Josephson :27
“* * * in substance [the contention] is that the Committee’s power to investigate is limited by Congress’ power to legislate; Congress is prohibited from legislating upon matters of thought, speech, or opinion; ergo, a statute empowering a Congressional committee to investigate such matters is unconstitutional. The mere statement of this syllogism is sufficient to refute it. Congress obviously can use information gathered by this Committee to pass legislation not encroaching upon civil liberties, as above noted. The appellant’s argument necessarily, therefore, is reduced to the absurd proposition that because the facts resulting from the Committee’s investigations conceivably may also be utilized as the basis for legislation impairing freedom of expression, the statute authorizing such investigations must be held void.”
We are not dealing here with the constitutionality of an act of Congress. Nor are we being asked to render an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of legislation which might conceivably be drafted at some time in the future. As this court said a few years ago in the Barsky case,28 Congress was engaged here in a “preliminary inquiry [which] has from the earliest times been considered an essential of the legislative process. * * * Obviously, the possibility that invalid as well as valid legislation might ensue from an inquiry does not limit the power of inquiry; invalid legislation might ensue from any inquiry.”
Congress, through the Buchanan Committee, was concerned with a perennial problem in our democracy — how to deal with highly organized pressure groups, and the distortions and evils they sometimes bring in their wake, and how to distinguish such groups from individual citizens petitioning their representatives. Neither direct nor indirect lobbying is an evil and a danger, but either can become so, if plainly or subtly dishonest methods are used to distort the legislative function. The court recognizes that this is true with respect to indirect lobbying when it says that “an evil might arise” “if influences upon public *184opinion were 'being bought and prostituted”.29 I reject the notion that because Congress may not constitutionally prohibit indirect lobbying activities, it is without power to provide any measure of protection for itself and the public from its abuse, And here, since the Buchanan Committee had strong reason to believe that the abuse had already arisen, the attending circumstances were clearly pertinent to its inquiry, A convincing example to support that belief is found in the letter under date of January 10, 1950, from Eli Lilly & Co., a corporation manufacturing medicinal products, advising that their “budget committee had approved a contribution30 of $25,000 to the CCG for the calendar year 1950”; and the CCG’s reply thereto under date of January 17, 1950. These letters are reproduced in this margin.31
*185To determine, inter alia, “if influences upon public opinion were being bought and prostituted,”32 the Constitution permitted and Congress authorized a broad inquiry. The purpose of that inquiry was to find the problems, frame hypotheses for coping with them, and then, in the light of the facts brought out by the investigation, determine which hypotheses could best stand the test of experience, the Constitution and a vote in Congress. It cannot be seriously urged that every problem and every hypothesis must meet the test of constitutionality.
(3) If, as I believe, Congress had the power to and did authorize the Buchanan Committee’s inquiry into indirect as well as direct lobbying activities, and that the particular questions in controversy here were pertinent to that inquiry, then in the absence of some constitutional privilege, appellant’s refusal to answer was a contempt of Congress. Appellant claims such a privilege, resting his refusal of the requested information upon the lofty heights of the freedom of speech, press and petition guaranteed by the First Amendment. As I understand it, this claim is laid upon the factual premise that all amounts of $500 or more were received from persons who purchased the CCG’s literature, rather than persons who used ostensible purchases to cloak what were actually contributions for which disclosure was required by the Lobbying Act. I think the Buchanan Committee Report Citing Edward A. Rumely and hearings make abundantly clear that this premise is untenable. I would there*186fore reject the claim of privilege of nondisclosure that rests upon it.
The Buchanan Committee Report Citing Edward A. Rumely and the hearings on House Resolution 298 disclosed, as summarized above,33 that the CCG is a registered and well-financed Lobbying organization engaged in distributing propaganda material on a large scale. In addition to the activities which the court regards as indirect, CCG also engaged in direct lobbying.34 Finally, the Report and 'hearings disclose that the CCG changed its pattern of financial support upon passage of the Lobbying Act because “[w]e didn’t want to get into the position of reporting our contributors.” It seems to me immaterial that among those from whom the CCG received $500 or more, there may have been some who had other motives than the influencing of opinion and legislation. In any reasonable view of the facts, it is clear that appellant and the 'CCG engaged in a course of conduct calculated to disguise lobbying contributions as purchases.
Congress has adopted the principle of disclosure as a means of preserving the integrity of the election process as well as the legislative process. Thus, for example, a recent enactment makes it unlawful to publish any pamphlet, advertisement, etc., relating to any person who has declared his intention to seek federal office unless the publication bears the name of the person responsible for its publication.35 The Corrupt Practices Act requires the treasurer of a political committee to file with the Clerk of the House of Representatives “[t]he name and address of each person who has made a contribution to or for such committee in one or more items of the aggregate amount or value, within the calendar year, of $100 or more, together with the amount and date of such contribution.”36 In the only attack on the latter provision to reach the Supreme Court, First Amendment rights were not even discussed. Instead, the Court said,
*187"To say that Congress is without power to pass appropriate legislation, to safeguard [the] election [of the President and Vice President] from the ( improper use of money to influence the result is to deny to the nation in a vital particular the power of self-protection.”37
No one would seriously contend that the requirements for disclosure under the Corrupt Practices Act are offensive to the Constitution. The First Amendment is not violated merely because disclosure might conceivably deter some from implementing their political views with financial support. And although the question before us does not depend upon the constitutionality of the analogous provisions in the Lobbying Act,”38 the same principles are applicable to them. If legislation requiring financial disclosure is free from objection on First Amendment grounds, compulsion of these disclosures by legislative inquiry is likewise free from the same objection. The Buchanan Committee has restricted no one in the free exercise of his rights to say what he pleases, or to assemble and to petition for any purpose.
I do not think that the constitutional rights of free speech, press and petition afford a greater degree of protection to contributions in the disguised form of purchases than to contributions in pristine form. And since I believe that the latter are not protected from disclosure by First Amendment rights, I do not see how such protection can be accorded to the former. To hold otherwise would only reward artifice and subterfuge. The CCG’s right to promote, retard and otherwise influence legislation is inviolate. But that right does not extend to protection from disclosure of its financial support. I would affirm the conviction.

. Hereafter referred to as the Buchanan Committee.

. Hereafter referred to as CCG.

. H.Res.298, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (Aug. 12, 1949), printed in Hearings before House Select Committee on Lobbying Activities, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 1, p. 1 (1950) (hereafter cited as Hearings), and also J. A., p. 188.

. 60 Stat. 839, 2 U.S.C.A. § 261. Registration was under protest, J.A., p. 182, apparently on the theory that the CCG was a “publisher,” rather than a lobbying organization, Brief for Appellant, pp. 14 — 16, and did not have as its principal purpose “ft]o influence, directly or indirectly, the passage or defeat of any legislation.” 60 Stat. 839, 841, 2 U.S.C. A. § 266.

. Ibid.

. 60 Stat. 839, 840, 2 U.S.C.A. § 264(a) (1). Emphasis supplied. See H.R.Rep. No.3024, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 1-3 (1950), (hereafter cited as H.R.Rep.No.3024) which is a part of the record in this case as Government Exhibit No. 4.

. Id. at pages 1-3, 9.

. Letter of Jan. 17, 1950, from Sumner Gerard, Treasurer, Committee for Constitutional Government, to Mr. E. L. Noyes, Eli Lilly & Co., printed in Hearings pt. 5, p. 32; reproduced in note 31, infra.

. Hearings pt. 5, p. 37.

. Id. at page 29. See also id. at pages 37, 42. H.R.Rep.No.3024 states, at page 2:
“Of particular significance is the fact that Edward A. Rumely and the Committee for Constitutional Government, Inc., in recent years have devised a scheme for raising enormous funds without filing true reports pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act. This scheme has the color of legality but in fact is a method of circumventing the law. It utilizes the system * * * whereby contributions to the Committee for Constitutional Government are designated as payments for the purchase of books, which are transmitted to others at the direction of the purchaser, with both the contributor of the money and the recipients of the books totally unaware of the subterfuge in most cases.”
The theory behind this arrangement was, of course, that the names of “purchasers of books” for amounts of $500 or more need not be reported under the Lobbying Act whereas “contributors” giving $500 or more would have to be disclosed.

. The nature of the CCG operation was one that required large amounts of money. H.R.Rep.No.3024 points out, at page 1, that Rumely and the CCG “ * * * have registered and reported as lobbyists under the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act since October 7, 1946. Since that date the Committee for Constitutional Government, Inc., has reported spending approximately $2,000,-000. One of the chief functions of the Committee for Constitutional Government, Inc., is the distribution of books and pamphlets presenting one side of national legislative issues. In the period 1937 to 1944, prior to the enactment of the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946, the Committee for Constitutional Government, Inc., distributed some 82,-000,000 booklets, pamphlets, and other pieces of literature, or at the rate of *180about 12,000,000 pieces a year.” This material was sent to “every type of [mailing] list,” Hearings pt. 5, p. 93, of “opinion molders” including clergymen, labor and farm leaders, educators, governors and legislators, doctors, journalists, business executives and millionaires. Id. at 95. Much of this material, Rumely admitted, was sent out under congressional frank. Letters written by Rumely indicated that one COG technique was to have some member interested in a particular subject and statement introduce it into the Congressional Record. Id. at 98-102, 106-7. The Congressman then ordered a number of copies designated by the CCG to be printed by the Government Printing Office. And since the CCG could not draw a check to the Government Printing Office, payment was made to the Congressman who in turn remitted to the Government Printing Office. Id. at 97-107. Rumely admitted sending' 2,-800,000 pieces out under frank in 1949, id. at 101, and eight to ten million between the passage of the Lobbying Act and the Buchanan Committee investigation. Id. at 97-8. In addition to the flood of pamphlets, the COG published millions of books, as indicated in the majority opinion of the court.

. Rumely was also indicted for refusing to disclose the identity of a woman from Toledo who gave CCG $2,000 for the distribution of “The Road Ahead.” J.A., pp. 4, 32.

. Sinclair v. United States, 1929, 279 U.S. 263, 298, 49 S.Ct 268, 273, 73 L.Ed. 692.

. J.A., p. 175.

. J.A., pp. 40-2.

. “Because of the refusal of the Committee for Constitutional Government, Inc., to produce pertinent financial records, this committee was unable to determine whether or not the Committee for Constitutional Government, Inc., is evading or Violating the letter or the spirit of the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act- by the establishment of class or contribu*181tions called ‘Receipts from the sale of books and literature,’ or whether they are complying with a law which requires amendments to strengthen it.
“The policy of the Committee for Constitutional Government, Inc., of refusing to accept contributions of more than §490 unless earmarked for books, etc., may also involve: (1) Dividing large contributions into installments of §490 or less, and causing the records of the Committee for Constitutional Government to reflect receipt of each installment on a different date, and/or causing the records of the Committee for Constitutional Government to give credit, for the several installments, to various relatives and associates of the actual contributor. (2) Causing the Committee for Constitutional Government’s records as to ‘Contributions’ to reflect less than the total amount of contributions actually received, by labeling some part of such funds as payments made for printed matter.
“Because of the refusal of the Committee for Constitutional Government, Inc., to produce pertinent financial records, this committee was unable to determine whether or not the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act requires amendment to prevent division of large contributions into installments, or to prevent the crediting of contributions to others than the real contributor, or to prevent the use of other subterfuges.” H.R.Rep. No. 3024, pp. 2-3.

. While the hearings insofar as they pertain to Rumely and the CCG, were not made a part of the record in their entirety, they were filed with the trial court, under the conditions agreed to in the following colloquy:
“Mr. Hitz [Government Counsel]: I may say, Your Honor, that for the purposes of this trial it has been agreed between Mr. Burkinshaw and myself that the two volumes, Part 4 and Part 5 of the hearings, insofar as they relate to Mr. Rumely, are correct and we will not go to the reporter or to any shorthand notes for that purpose. Is that right?
“Mr. Burkinshaw [Counsel for Rumely] : That is right, absolutely.”

. United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 2 Cir., 1945, 148 F.2d 416, 445; see also United States v. Darby, 1941, 312 U.S. 100, 109, 61 S.Ct. 451, 85 L.Ed. 609; Overfield v. Pennroad Corporation, 3 Cir., 1944, 146 F.2d 889, 898.

. “This court has repeatedly held — and it is not alone in so holding — that a judgment need not be affirmed solely upon the ground that seemed controlling to the lower court. A fortiori, this court is not bound by the theory urged by the successful litigant below. The rule might be otherwise, though we are not here so holding, if the appellant urged one ground in the court below, assigned error, and then changed his position on appeal. It might then be urged, perhaps, that the lower court should have been given the benefit of the appellant’s theory, and thus possibly have avoided the alleged error.” Wagner v. United States, 9 Cir., 1933, 67 F.2d 656, 657; cf. Smith v. United States, 9 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 181, 185.

. H.Res. 298, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. (Aug. 12, 1949), printed in Hearings pt. 1, p. 1, and also J. A., p. 188.

. Page 15, supra. Emphasis supplied.

. Hearings pt. 1, pp. 54, 55.

. This pamphlet is quoted in Hearings pt. 5, p. 6.

. To that end it has adopted “the principle of disclosure in both the economic and political spheres. The Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Pure Food and Drug Administration make available to the public information about sponsors of economic wares. In the political realm, the Federal Communications Commission, the Post Office Department, the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and the Secretary of the Senate — all of these under various statutes — are required to collect information about those who attempt to influence public opinion. Thousands of statements disclosing the ownership and control of newspapers using the second-class mailing privilege are filed annually With the Post Office Department. Hundreds of statements disclosing the ownership and control of radio stations are filed with the Federal Communications Commission, * * * In 1938, Congress found it necessary to pass the Foreign Agents Registration Act [22 U.S.C.A. § 611 et seq.] which forced certain citizens and aliens alike to register with the Department of Justice the facts about their sponsorship and activities. * * * ”
“ * * * [The Government] ought, to provide a source of reference whore-private citizens and groups may find accurate information about the activities, sponsorship, and background of those who-are active in the market place of public-opinion.” To Secure These Rights: The Report of the President’s Committee on Civil Rights 52-3 (1947).

. 1949, 95 Cong.Rec. 11386, 11389. See-also the remarks of Congressman Buchanan at the opening of the inquiry.. Hearings pt. 1, pp. 7-8.

. For a discussion of modern lobbying techniques, see, e. g., Comment, Improving the Legislative Process: Federal Regulation of Lobbying, 1947, 56 Xale L. J. 304.

. 1947, 165 F.2d 82, 90-91, certiorari denied 833 U.S. 838, 68 S.Ct. 609, 92 L.Ed. 1122, rehearing denied, 333 U.S. 858, 68 S.Ct. 731, 92 L.Ed. 1138, motion for leave to file a Second petition for rehearing denied 1948, 335 U.S. 899, 69 S.Ct. 294, 93 L.Ed. 434.

. Barsky v. United States, 1948, 83 U.S. App.D.C. 127, 131, 167 F.2d 241, 245, certiorari denied 334 U.S. 843, 68 S.Ct. 1511, 92 L.Ed. 1767.

. Majority opinion, p. 14.

. Emphasis supplied.

. Letter from E. L. Noyes, Eli Lilly & Co., Indianapolis, Indiana:
“January 10, 1950.
“Committee Eor Constitutional
Government,
205 East Forty-Second Street,
New York 17, N. Y.
“Gentlemen: This is to advise you that our budget committee has approved a contribution of $25,000 to the Committee for Constitutional Government for the calendar year 1950.
“In approving this contribution, it wa3 the consensus of opinion of our budget committee that we should like to have you use some of these funds in distributing books, pamphlets, Paul Revere messages, etc., to a mailing list which we will supply you with. Such a mailing list would include school teachers, members of the clergy, and other influential groups of our local community. Can you advise me as to how large a mailing list this contribution will supply with the educational material which your committee publishes ?
“It is also our opinion that perhaps distribution of every publication to these individuals might be so excessive as to do more harm than good. The tendency might arise for these people to throw everything that comes in the mail into the nearest waste basket. Therefore, would it be possible, in case we so desire, to supply you with a mailing list and to have you mail to them only those publications which we designate.
“With all good wishes for a very suc-sessful year, I am
Sincerely yours,
E. L. Noyes.”
Reply of Sumner Gerard, Treasurer, CCG:
“Committee for Constitutional Government,
January 17, 1950,
“Mr. E. L. Noyes,
Eh Lilly & Co., Indianapolis 6, Ind.
“My Dear Mr. Noyes: Your letter of January 10 announcing a $25,000 purchase of our educational material was a source of great encouragement to Dr. Bang and myself. Because of Mr. Gan-nett’s frequently expressed admiration and friendship for you, we sent him a copy of your letter. On Monday morning, he telephoned from Miami Beach greatly pleased over this news.
“Your substantial purchase so early in the year will enable us to lift our committee’s activities to higher levels of effectiveness. We have found that money put to work in January multiplies itself several fold during the year by bringing in additional support. This purchase of material should be charged on your books as an outright purchase and not as a contribution.
“The firm of Farabaúgh, Pettengill, Chapleau & Roper have given us an opinion that such purchases of material to uphold our free-enterprise system are legitimate corporate expense, like other advertising, and the Treasury Department has accepted in hundreds of cases such expenditures as legitimate corporate purchases. When purchasing, it is necessary for the purchaser to do exactly what you suggest, namely to designate the material purchased and the direction of its distribution.
“We will service a list of 5,C00 names at $4 per individual name 22 times between February and December 1950; or a list of 10,000 eleven times; or of 25,000 four times. In connection with this we will include the distribution of 5,000 copies of Norton’s great book The Constitution of the United States: Its Sources and Its Application, and 3,000 copies of Pettengill’s For Americans Only. We stand ready to cooperate with you in working out in detail, as may best suit your wishes, the servicing of such lists as you designate.
“We suggest that you .set aside $8 per name for the full Paul Revere messages service to 300 including all State legislators in Indiana (150), the balance of 150 to go to names that you par-*185tieularly designate in your own organization or in the city of Indianapolis. We will include in this service a copy of the Norton book and a copy of Dr. Bang’s The Keys To Prosperity which should have a special value to State legislators.
“With $20,000 for the mailings, $2,400 for this Paul Revere service to 300 names, there would be left $2,600. We would suggest that you set aside this amount, at $1 per copy, for 2,600 copies of Compulsory Medical Care and the Welfare State by Melchior Palyi. The report upon which this book is based was worked up at a substantial expenditure by the National Physicians Committee before it disbanded. We expect to have shortly 20,000 copies in book form, publication price $2. Our price to you will be $1 per copy.
“The contents of the book are of such great importance that distribution to key leaders in national thinking and in positions of public influence should be made soon. If you agreed to allot $2,600 to this distribution we will bear distribution cost and send to all Members of Congress, all Governors, to selected editors, newspaper columnists, and radio commentators, and to 000 of the top level leaders in the medical profession, including all officers of State medical associations.
“Any portion of this distribution where you desired it we would be glad to include your courtesy card as donor. Otherwise we shall distribute over the name of the committee itself. In the case of Palyi’s book we shall seek some individual of public influence to write an accompanying letter calling attention to the book and its great importance. In the distribution to Congress we might have Congressman Smith himself — the head of a medical clinic and highly respected in both Houses of Congress — write the accompanying letter asking that every Member read the content. Please note copy of the telegram to members of the Rules Committee enclosed herewith.
“Our trustees will meet on January 25 and it would be a matter of great encouragement if we could have this transaction closed by that date.
“In the meantime, if you or any other member of your organization come to New York City, do give Dr. King and the other members a chance to exchange thought with you.
Sincerely yours,
Sumner Gerard, Treasurer.”
These letters are reproduced in H.R. Rep.No.3239, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 8-13 (1951), and are printed in Hearings pt. 5, pp. 32r-3.
Congressman Buchanan also remarked: “I might say that the total amount of loans and contributions that you [Rumely] did furnish to the Committee aggregate a very small amount; in fact, I think it is about $25,000, in contrast to the very wide ramifications of conduct of your Committee for Constitutional Government, which, running as of the current quarter, will exceed $1,100,000 this year. I think that we have a right to know and have a right to seek that information.” H.R.Rep.No.3024, p. 16.

. Majority opinion, p. 14.

. See text and note 11, supra.

. Rumely stated at the hearings that he had registered as a lobbyist “because I send to Congress releases and other material,” J.A., p. 32. Rumely admitted that CCG had attempted to influence legislation by circulating letters and telegrams to Members of Congress and private citizens urging defeat of a presidential plan for reorganizing the National Labor Relations Board, Hearings pt. 5, pp. 66-8, H.R.Rep.No.3024, p. 11, protesting executive action under the Walsh- ■ Healey Act [45 U.S.C.A. § 35 et seep], Hearings pt. 5, pp. 78-9, opposing pending public housing legislation, id. at 79-80, and medical care legislation, id. at 77-8, and supporting tax reforms, id. at 79, including a program for a constitutional limitation on individual income taxes, H. R.Rep.No.3024, pp. 13-14. In addition, the CCG occasionally arranged dinners for congressmen through its Washington representative, including an abortive effort to bring together a group of congressmen at a crucial time in the legislative voting on the Taft-Hartley Act [29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq.], Hearings pt. 5, pp. 80-92. Plans for this dinner wore made by Homer Dodge, Washington representative of the CCG. Ibid. Mr. Dodge’s other duties apparently included keeping in touch with congressmen on matters of interest to OCG, especially the mailing of COG propaganda under congressional frank. See various letters by Dodge reproduced at id. pt. 5, pp. 68, 106-7, 151. See also notes 11 and 16, supra.

. 62 Stat. 719, 724 (1948), as amended, 18 U.S.C. § 612 (1951). 62 Stat. 718, 723 (1948), 18 U.S.C. § 608(b) (1951) reads: “Whoever purchases or buys any goods, commodities, advertising, or articles of any kind or description, the proceeds of which, or any portion thereof, directly or indirectly inures to the benefit of or for any candidate for an elective Federal office including the offices of President of the United States, and Presidential and Vice Presidential electors or any political committee or other political organization engaged in furthering, advancing, or advocating the nomination or election of any candidate for any such office or the success of any national political party, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

. 43 Stat. 1070, 1071 (1925), 2 U.S.C.A, § 244.

. Burroughs and Cannon v. United States, 1934, 290 U.S. 534, 545, 54 S.Ct. 287, 78 L.Ed. 484. See also United States V. United States Brewers’ Ass’n, D.C.W.D.Pa.1916, 239 E. 163, 169.

. 60 Stat. 839, 840, 841-2, 2 U.S.C.A. §§ 264, 267.