Page images
PDF
EPUB

The CHAIRMAN. What were they, just blank?

Professor ZELLER. Blank. There were a number of cases of that sort. Many powerful and influential associations did not file under sections 305 and 307 at all. Among these, just to mention a few are the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the Association of American Railroads, and the National Association of Manufacturers. The latter is now seeking redress in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. Reference was made to that by Mr. Kaufman. A recent check in the Clerk's Office indicates that an additional 21 organizations filed through January 1948. Prominent among these is the National Savings and Loan League, whose executive manager, however, gave no information, simply stating that there was nothing to add to the information given on Forms B and C filed by the legislative agents of that association.

Among the organizations that did file with statements of their total expenditures for the first 6 months of 1947 were: American Federation of Labor (in campaign to defeat Taft-Hartley bill)

$819, 648. 18 Committee for Constitutional Government, Inc.

248, 505. 58 Townsend National Recovery Plan and Weekly

236, 599. 42 National Physicians Committee for the Extension of Medical Service

135, 376. 86 National Association of Electric Companies.

126, 039. 75 National Home and Property Owners Foundation.

77, 333. 82 Southern Pine Industry Committee.

34, 988. 23 Southern States Industrial Council

51, 686. 95 American Legion -

29, 788. 22 Unemployment Benefit Advisers.

25, 157. 79 American Farm Bureau Committee..

23, 097. 12 Sea Air Legislative Committee

21, 326. 20 National Association of Cooperatives

21, 119. 35 National St. Lawrence Association.

20, 381. 05 Central Valley Project Association.

18, 306. 38 American Medical Association..

15, 174. 11 Christian Amendment Movement.

9, 875. 40 American Library Association.-

7, 990. 17 National Conference of Railroad Investors

7, 525. 83 The People's Lobby - .

6, 694, 10 National Federation of Post Office Clerks.

6, 283. 66 North Dakota Resources Board.

4, 978. 21 Western Defense Housing Co.

4, 848. 08 American Parents Association..

3, 372. 59 Federation of American Scientists

3, 077. 67 Irrigation Districts Association of California

2, 576. 22 American Veterans of World War II.

494. 20 National Committee for Strengthening Congress

248. 20 Legislative Bureau of the Communist Party, United States of America.-

34. 95 That is not a complete list, but just samples of organizations with amounts expended.

Senator McCLELLAN. The first one listed there is the American Federation of Labor campaign to beat the Taft-Hartley, bill?

Professor ZELLER. Yes. Let me explain that. The American Federation of Labor did not really file, as I understand it, under sections 305 and 307, as an organization principally engaged in lobbying. What they did do, apparently, was to appeal to their affiliated unions to make contributions to be earmarked for the campaign to defeat the Taft-Hartley law, and so they filed under the act and

gave a rather complete statement, Senator. I think they received their contributions from over 100 of their organizations and spent from April 23, 1947, through June 30, the sum indicated here.

Senator McCLELLAN. However, in good faith, they compiled that? Professor ZELLER. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not see on this list anywhere the name of any organization who spent funds to promote the Taft-Hartley act, and there were some?

Professor ZELLER. Oh, yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Many of them?
Professor ZELLER. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The list is obviously very incomplete?

Professor ZELLER. Yes, but they did not necessarily file under Form A. I just thought you would be interested in the amounts of money some of them recorded. I believe I took the largest sum I found, which was $819,000 by the American Federation of Labor and then I thought it would be amusing to indicate that the Legislative Bureau of the Communist Party filed a statement that they had spent $34.95.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know what they spent that $34.95 for?

Professor ZELLER. I don't remember whether they itemized the expenditures. I looked at that statement some time ago.

During the first year, however, in accordance with section 308 all but 22 of these 216 organizations registered their paid lobbyists. In fact, 845 different legislative agents filed Form B and recorded an additional 677 employers. I might say, in answer to a question that you put to Mr. Kaufman, that many lobbyists indicated on their forms that only a small portion of their time was devoted to legislative work. For example, some of them said 10 percent; therefore they indicated a general salary of $10,000, only about $1,000 of which could be considered as compensation for legislative work. Quite a number of them did that.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you suggest how they might handle that other than let them estimate their own percentage of salary spent in lobbying?

Professor ZELLER. I think they should be permitted to do it. If they feel that their full time is not so devoted, they should be permitted to do it, and it should also be done by their employers in their statements. Among the organizations that did file under Form A, some did indicate the salaries paid lobbyists, and some did not. It seems to me that if Form A is complete, it would cover in the salaries and expenses paid to the legislative agents. Yes, I think I would permit the legislative agents to decide what portion of their time they spent in lobbying

The CHAIRMAN. The most effective lobbying from an organization might be from the home office, and the least effective by the representative in Washington.

Professor ZELLER. Yes. I make that point later on. I think it is very important to recognize that.

Now, as a footnote, I would simply add, to bring this up to date, that by January 1948 there were about 1,000 different lobbyists registered and that they represented a total of approximately 750 employer organizations and individuals.

A break-down of the total figures of 699 employers found on Forms A and B during the first year under the lobbying title indicates that 498 were associations or member organizations, while 201 were individuals or individual companies or corporations. More than half came from the various categories of business while about 75 represented labor and governmental employee organizations. Agricultural, veteran, professional, civic, and miscellaneous groups made up the remainder.

Seventy-four paid lobbyists were in the employ of more than one “person." In fact, these 74 represent in legislative matters a total of 287 organizations and individuals. In a number of cases, for example if a lawyer represented 72 trust companies interested in rebates under certain legislation, I listed those 72 as just one group. The record is held by Walter F. Woodul who represented 24 railroads and the Imperial Sugar Co. of Texas. James E. Curry represented 18 Indian tribes and is promised 10 percent of all recovery in claims plus reasonable fees for other work. Stephen Walter at a salary of $52,000 per year represented 14 power companies and Northcutt Ely was paid $40,000 for legal services to six governmental water-power companies.

The statements disclosed further that many associations have more than one person in their employ at the same time as paid lobbyists. Here the record is held by the Townsend National Recovery Plan with 34 different registrants from 25 States of the Union. The Citizens Committee on Displaced Persons, working for the passage of the Stratton bill, H. R. 2910, followed the policy of having all their 27 employees, including office and field workers, file individual registrations. A total payroll of $165,000 annually was thus recorded. It might be added that the Citizens Committee on Displaced Persons, as an organization, filed one of the fullest lists of contributions and expenditures on record.

Among the former Members of Congress, who registered under section 308, at least those that I recognized,

were Albert E. Carter of California, employed by the Pacific Gas & Electric Co. at $12,000 per annum; John A. Danaher of Connecticut, employed by Revere Copper & Brass, Inc., at $25,000 per year; Wesley E. Disney of Oklahoma, employed by the National Gas Association of America at $10,000 per year, plus legal fees from other groups; Winder R. Harris of Virginia, employed by the Shipbuilders Council of America at $15,000 per annum; Fritz G. Lanham of Texas, employed by the National Patent Council, the State Rights Association, and others at total $16,000 per year; Robert Ramspeck of Georgia, employed by the Air Transport Association of America at $25,000 per year; H. Jerry Voorhis of California, employed by the Cooperative League of the United States of America at $7,500 per year; Clifton A. Woodrum of Virginia, employed by the American Plant Food Council, Inc., at $36,000 per annum. Prominent among other former public officials was Samuel Rosenman employed by the Associated Fur Coat & Trimming Manufacturers, Inc., at $40,000 per year. Former Senator Danaher, Mr. Rosenman, and 14 others specifically requested that their registrations be canceled during this first year.

As I say, I found eight former Congressmen during the first year. There may have been others that I did not recognize but certainly the number was not as large as I thought in the light of the charges that were made years ago that lame-duck Congressmen became the paid

agents of the groups that appeared before them at the time they were in the Congress. I remember that back in the Seventieth Congress, a resolution was introduced to make it illegal for an ex-Congressman to become a paid lobbyist. That resolution did not pass, however.

Sixty-five women were numbered among the 845 who registered as lobbyists. The highest paid salary reported by a woman during the first year was $7,000 per annum paid to Margaret K. Taylor by the National Cooperative Milk Producers Federation, whereas Purcell L. Smith of the National Association of Electric Companies reported the highest salary of $65,000 per year for the male registrants. Top labor leaders as William Green and Philip Murray did not register for their organizations. However, three legislative agents for the American Federation of Labor registered, each with $7,280 per annum salaries and two for the Congress of Industrial Organizations at salaries of $6,000 and $4,820. The lowest compensation was that of Leslie B. Wright who reported he received $5 a year from the District of Columbia Federation of Women's Clubs. There are also a number of volunteers who have registered although a reading of section 308 would appear to exempt agents not employed for compensation.

A check of the addresses of persons" employing lobbyists indicated that all but seven States of the Union were represented as well as the following Territories of the United States: Alaska, Puerto Rico and Hawaii. In addition, organizations with addresses of Mexico, the Netherlands, Egypt, Cuba, and the Canal Zone employed registered lobbyists. The number of organizations with Washington, D. C., addresses came highest, followed by New York, Illinois, California, and Texas. It has been estimated that there are about 3,000 lawyers in Washington, D. C., more per capita than in any other city in the country. A large number of lawyers with Capital addresses not only represent, as registered lobbyists, organizations located in the District of Columbia, but also organizations with addresses elsewhere in the country, in the Territories and in foreign countries.

The Forms B and C on which the paid lobbyists register and report their quarterly expenses give little information about the associations employing them beyond the salary paid, the duration of the employment and the proposed legislation he is employed to support or oppose. By the end of the first year 1,517 Form C quarterly expense statements had been filed. By January 31, 1948, this number had risen to 2,592. These are the expense statements of the paid lobbyists. It must be stressed that the effectiveness of a regulatory lobbying statute must be judged not merely by the number of paid lobbyists who register, but most emphatically by the number of organizations hiring lobbyists, and the nature of the information they disclose about themselves.

With that background, I should like to indicate what my specific recommendations for revision are. I understand that the matter is in the courts and Congress is not likely to do anything before the courts—at least the district court—is heard from, but I feel that it is the Congress that should legislate and not the courts. It is recommended that:

1. The lobbying title of the Legislative Reorganization Act be completely redrafted and its various sections considered as an integrated whole in order to avoid contradictions and ambiguities, The lobbying title as it now stands gives evidence of heavy depend

*

*

ence upon the Black-Smith lobbying bills of the Seventy-fourth Congress (1936). It fails to clearly embody the broader purposes of the members of the Special Committee on the Organization of Congress when they stated in their committee report (S. Rpt. No. 1011, 79th Cong.) 1946

Mass means of communication and the art of public relations have so increased the pressures upon Congress as to distort and confuse the normal expressions of public opinion.

In order to enable Congress better to evaluate and determine evidence, data, or communications from organized groups seeking to influence legislative action, we recommend the adoption of legislation requiring the registration of all groups engaged and individuals employed in such activity.

I might say that there was little debate on the floor of Congress with reference to title III. In fact, among those who did debate the question, there was general disagreement. As I read that debate, I felt that Mr. Dirksen apparently had one interpretation of the statute, and Senator La Follette had another. I can quote the statements. Senator McClellan, you were a Member of the House, were you not, at the time?

Senator McCLELLAN. I believe I was a Member of the Senate at that time.

Professor ZELLER. I recall that you preferred the interpretation that would require professional lobbyists to register and that you thought there might be some violation of civil rights, if I recall the quotation.

Senator McCLELLAN. What I was complaining about was something I indicated a while ago. I believe that any constituent has a right to confer with his Senators without registration, and that right should not be denied him, the right of a constituent or a citizen.

Professor ZELLER. I intend to indicate its relationship to the question of civil rights later, and I shall be glad to comment on it at greater length at that time. Thus methods employed to influence legislation are no longer restricted largely to buttonholding Members of Congress in the Nation's Capitol or at home. Mass channels of communication have changed modern pressure techniques drastically. I think it is important to realize that. I think it is important to keep in mind this broad interpretation of the term "lobbying" in view of the role played by radio, by the newspaper, and newspaper advertisements and so on, and that we must realize that there are organizations spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in so-called educational work, influencing public opinion. I think it is a good thing. I am glad to see the emphasis placed on a “public be pleased” attitude as against the old "public be damned" attitude; that these organizations realize they have to defend their programs in the broad public arena. I don't say they all do it fairly, but I think the fact that they realize they must do it is a very good sign.

Senator ROBERTSON. Under section 101 of the Internal Revenue Code, religious organizations and a number of other organizations are exempt from income taxes provided they do not indulge in political activities. Do I understand that you would like for all of those organizations if they appear here concerning legislation in which they are interested, to register as lobbyists, and that they make full disclosure to the Congress of all their activities and expenditures?

Professor ZELLER. I am aware of that section of the Internal Revenue Code. In reading some of the memoranda prepared by counsel for

--

« PreviousContinue »