5. The act should be revised to require the filing of statements and registration of "persons" who exert their influence upon any Federal bureau, agency, or Government official. The Congress having taken the first step in requiring registration of persons exerting influence upon the legislative body, the extension of its provisions to the administrative agencies would be a simple matter. It would be further recognition of the fact that the pressure upon the administrative division is considerable.

I might add that the Black bill in the Senate, S. 2512, of the Seventy-fourth Congress, had a similar provision.

6. The act should specifically prohibit the employment of any person to promote or oppose legislation when compensation is contingent in whole or in part upon the passage or defeat of legislative matters.

I might say that you will find such provisions in practically all the States that have lobbying laws. It isn't prohibited in the Federal law-I looked at the record and I came upon a legislative agent who registered and stated he was to be retained at a certain salary but if he succeeded in getting the excise tax on furs reduced from 20 to 10 percent he would get an additional fee, and if this tax was eliminated completely he would get still another fee. I think that is bad.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Do you remember who that was?

Professor ZELLER. Yes. I am just citing that as an example. There may be others. In the Congressional Record of January 29, 1948, on page 741, a gentleman by the name of Thomas J. Downs is recorded, and in answer to question 4 on Form B, how much he is paid and is to receive, he states the following:

Ten thousand dollars per annum as a retainer as Washington counsel on all matters affecting the economic and legal welfare of the industry, plus a fee of $15,000 in the event the excise tax on furs is cut from 20 to 10 percent, plus an additional fee of $25,000 in the event the entire excise tax on furs is repealed on or before July 1, 1948.

That is just an example what I happened to come across.

Senator ROBERTSON. Will you explain to me the significance of that? Does it have any bearing on what I was saying, whether it removed the excise tax on furs or not?

Professor ZELLER. It is not what it does to the Members of Congress, but it is the lengths to which some of the legislative agents would go in order to accomplish their purposes when so much extra compensation is involved. I think it may encourage under the general heading of legitimate lobbying practices the sort of thing we want to discourage.

Recommendation 7. The exemption granted in section 308 to newspapers or other regularly published periodicals should also be extended to the radio.

In section 308, among those exempted from registration, are newspapers and other published periodicals acting in the regular course of their business. It seems to me the exemption should be extended to include radio as well.

8. The contradictions in sections 307 and 311 as they affect the Corrupt Practices Act should be resolved making it clear that only duly organized State and local party committees are exempted from the provisions of the Lobbying Act and that others may be required to file under the Lobbying and Corrupt Practices Acts depending on their activities.

It doesn't seem very clear, and I think the language can be clarified there.

Conclusions: No one doubts that it is a nuisance to require such full information from private organizations, yet the time is opportune to insist upon it. These groups have grown accustomed in the past two decades to furnishing more and more information to the Government. Teeth should be put into the lobbying title at the earliest practical moment. It is far better for the Congress to clarify its position than for the courts to do so, but since the N. A. M. is now in the courts we may get an interpretation from this source with reference to these lobby provisions.

Groups engaged in the legitimate activity of helping the people's representatives formulate public policy are in a sense clothed with a public interest. A democracy is entitled to the fullest information from all the sources that constitute its functioning parts and who would deny that pressure groups play a valuable and indispensable part in the dynamics of government. The regulation of pressure groups and their paid agents does not interfere with the constitutional right of free speech, or free press or the right of petition. It denies to no one the high right of appeal to Congress or to the public for the purpose of influencing legislation. There should be no stigma attached to lobbying. The regulatory measure does not prohibit lobbying-it does not draw a distinction between good lobbying and bad lobbying. It simply requires organizations and their agents who influence legislation, who collect or spend money for this purpose to work in the open. Penalties should be provided for those who fail to comply. Of course, one of the objectives of the law is to put the whole game of pernicious lobbying out of existence and the bad pressure boys out of work. This legislation may be regarded as a curb against abuse of petition, as laws of libel and slander discourage abuse of freedom of speech and of press. It is difficult to see how a sound lobbying law could be considered violative of the first or fifth amendments of the Constitution, or a bill of attainder, as charged by some organizations.

I read the very well-prepared brief of the National Association of Manufacturers, and in that brief they make the point, for example, among many others, that the penalty which provides that a convicted person under the lobbying title may not engage in influencing legislation for a period of 3 years is a bill of attainder.

In respect to that, there are seven States at the present time that have similar provisions, and I have never seen that point raised in connection with the States that do have this provision. Wisconsin is one of them; I believe Kansas is another. There are seven.

Senator BRICKER. There have been no decisions on them?

Professor ZELLER. No; the enforcement of the laws has been very lax, indeed, in most States.

Senator BRICKER. You may proceed.

Professor ZELLER. It is, of course, difficult to estimate the number of pressure groups that are active in the area of national legislation. At the time when lobbying reached a new pitch of activity (1946-47), in the battles over elimination of price controls, rent controls, the Taft-Hartley labor bill, tax reduction, just to mention a few areas of legislation, about 700 organizations and individuals were found in the lobbying files as employers of paid legislative agents during the

first year of the lobbying statute. According to the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, more than 3,000 national trade and professional associations are represented in the Capital in some manner. The National Association of Manufacturers states there are 1,500 national or regional trade associations of commercial or industrial enterprises The report of the Temporary National Economic Committee in 1941 listed 381 national organizations with permanent representatives in Washington. Many of the associations recorded under the lobbying law are not, of course, national organizazations and undoubtedly do not have permanent representatives in Washington. Eighty-two organizations in the 1941 list registered in some form under the lobbying law in 1946-47.

It must be emphasized, however, that regulatory legislation by itself, no matter how carefully drawn or how vigorously enforced, will not eliminate the predatory lobby or discourage the use of questionable or illegitimate practices by pressure groups. Significantly, the lobbying title is part of the Legislative Reorganization Act which aimed to improve and modernize the organization and operation of the Congress. By setting your own house in order, gentlemen, you take the most effective step in bringing the lobby under control. However, in 1946 Congress took only a first step toward achieving the standards of a twentieth-century Congress. Surely by placing greater professional expert and clerical assistance at the disposal of legislative committees and Members, Congress has made itself less dependent upon unofficial sources of information than ever before.

By strengthening the power of Government to formulate legislative policy in other ways you will also go a long way in providing effective regulation of pressure groups. These other ways involve narrowing the chasm between the executive and legislative branches of our National Government, more fully enforcing the provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act, and revising such sections as have shown faulty implementation.

And then I make this final point in my prepared statement that if time permits I would like to present other recommendations that would make the Congress a more modern institution better equipped to meet the the complex and technological problems of today, but I am not going to take your time now because I think former Senator La Follettee and Representative Monroney in their two very able papers presented this morning left little for me to add.

Senator BRICKER. Thank you very much, Professor Zeller, for your presentation.

Are there any further questions?

Senator ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the witness that I am in full accord with her desire to see predatory lobbying abolished.

On your suggestion that we should strengthen the means of getting information that we need on legislation from Government sources rather than from private industry, I should like to remind you that when we were considering rationing and price control it was testified to us that there were 8,000,000 items in commerce in the United States and there was no living man that knew all about any one industry, much less all of the 8,000,000 items. And I don't know how many Government employees we would have to have to get full infor

mation even on the question of rationing and price control if they had to be thoroughly informed about 8,000,000 items before we could act. Professor ZELLER. Oh, I agree with you, Senator.

Senator ROBERTSON. Í mention that to show the problem.

Professor ZELLER. I quite agree with you, Senator. I have stated that pressure groups, and I am not using the term at all in a derogatory sense, have a very, very important role to play-I say an indispensable role to play-under our system of government

Senator ROBERTSON. But sometimes nobody knows better than the man who is going to be affected by the proposed legislation as to what it is going to do.

Professor ZELLER. Yes.

Senator ROBERTSON. You are a college professor, I believe.
Professor ZELLER. Yes.

Senator ROBERTSON. You are probably familiar with the old couplet:

The butterfly beside the road

Preached contentment to the toad,
The toad beneath the harrow knows
Exactly where each toothpoint goes.

Professor ZELLER. I think you are quite right, Senator, that these groups frequently can give you a practical approach to the problem before the Congress that is of great value.

Senator ROBERTSON. You understand I wasn't calling you a butterfly.

Professor ZELLER. I wouldn't mind if you did.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

Senator FERGUSON. Yes; I am interested in this word "predatory." Will you give me a definition of that?

Professor ZELLER. I suppose a predatory lobbyist is one that does not and is not willing to work in the open, one who attempts to offer money illegally-certainly, those two categories.

Senator FERGUSON. Well, the latter one is an actual criminal.

Professor ZELLER. That's right. He is violating the law. When I use the term "predatory lobbyist", I like to believe that anybody so designated is violating the lobby law as passed by the Congress of the United States.

Senator FERGUSON. You mean if they are actually violating the law, then they are predatory lobbyists?

Professor ZELLER. Well, with this qualification, they are. The language of the law is so unclear, that is, several sections of title III of the Legislative Reorganization Act are so unclear that I would hesitate to say to an organization, "You are a predatory lobby because you haven't conformed to the law." I think it is the responsibility of Congress to write clear legislation so that most reasonable people can interpret it

Senator FERGUSON. How would you have written this law? You say Congress should write it so that everybody will understand it. You are a political scientist. How would you write it?

Professor ZELLER. I would suggest you look at my list of recommendations, which I presented while you were out of the room. It is important, in my opinion, that we remove the stigma from the term "lobbying." Now, for example, Senator Robertson said that a mem

ber of the District of Columbia Bar Association would be disbarred if he engages himself in lobbying. Well, there is something wrong with the definition of lobbying there; that is, according to my concept of lobbying. I think you must understand that the practice of lobbying involves the use of the mass channels of communication to influence public opinion along the lines desired, as well as the practice of lobbyists coming down here to see legislators for the presentation of their position.

Senator ROBERTSON. If the Senator from Michigan will yield, I will give you the definition in the Code of Ethics of the Washington Bar.

Senator FERGUSON. Yes. Give it to them.

Senator ROBERTSON [reading]:

A lawyer openly and in his true character may render professional services before legislative or other bodies regarding proposed legislation and in advocacy of claims before departments of government upon the same principles of ethics which justify his appearance before courts; but it is unprofessional for a lawyer so engaged to conceal his attorneyship, to employ secret personal solicitations or to use means other than those addressed to the reason and understanding, to influence action.

Professor ZELLER. I think that if one could understand what appealing to reason means that there is nothing wrong with that definition. They didn't use the word "lobbying." I thought you said they actually used the term "lobbying" in that clause.

Senator FERGUSON. That does not use the term "lobbying."

Professor ZELLER. That's right. I see little to object to in that definition.

Senator FERGUSON. That would merely say that a person was unethical if he represented himself as a lawyer and did something not open and aboveboard.

Professor ZELLER. That's right. Or, I don't suppose he would expose himself to making a false statement under oath in one of the forms. That certainly would be using tactics that we associate with a predatory lobby, if he made a deliberate misstatement under oath. Senator FERGUSON. Do you think this word "predatory" lobby is a good word? That expresses your private opinion.

Professor ZELLER. My understanding of the term was a person who uses illegal and unethical methods, and I am assuming that you know what these terms mean under the statutes either of the Congress or of the State.

Senator ROBERTSON. The Senator from Michigan is chairman of our Subcommittee on Wildlife Conservation of this committee, and in that field a predatory animal is a more or less useful animal that destroys something that is better than he is.

Professor ZELLER. Perhaps I had better use the common term so that there is no misunderstanding: those who use unethical or illegal means. I think that is better, perhaps, than the word "predatory" so that there is no misunderstanding as to what I mean there.

Senator FERGUSON. How effective have lobbying laws been in the States?

Professor ZELLER. There are 25 States that now require the registration of paid lobbyists, and 17 of these also require that expense statements be filed. Some States have better laws than othersWisconsin ranks high-but in general I would say they have not been effective for two reasons: First, the will to enforce them in most