Opinion of the Court. POLISH NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF NORTH AMERICA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 226. Argued January 11, 12, 1944.-Decided June 5, 1944. 1. In view of the activities of the petitioner in the conduct of its insurance business (described in the opinion), the National Labor Relations Board was justified in concluding that the practices in which the petitioner was found to be and to have been engaged were, within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, unfair labor practices "affecting commerce," which the Board was empowered by the Act to prevent. Pp. 644, 648. 2. The cultural and fraternal aspects of the petitioner's activities did not except it from the operation of the National Labor Relations Act. P. 648. 3. The application of the National Labor Relations Act to the activities of the petitioner, though in the business of insurance, was a valid exercise of the power of Congress under the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. P. 649. 136 F.2d 175, affirmed. CERTIORARI, 320 U. S. 725, to review a decree granting enforcement of an order (as modified) of the National Labor Relations Board, 42 N. L. R. B. 1375. Mr. Ewart Harris, with whom Mr. Casimir E. Midowicz was on the brief, for petitioner. Attorney General Biddle, with whom Solicitor General Fahy, Messrs. Robert L. Stern, Alvin J. Rockwell, Frank Donner, and Miss Ruth Weyand were on the brief, for respondent. MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court. The National Labor Relations Board, having found that petitioner, in violation of the National Labor Rela Opinion of the Court. 322 U.S. tions Act, had engaged in unfair labor practices, issued an order of cessation against it. 42 N. L. R. B. 1375. On a petition for review and a cross-petition of the Board for enforcement, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit sustained the order. 136 F. 2d 175. Of the numerous issues before that court only two are open here, the importance of which led us to grant certiorari. 320 U. S. 725. The questions are these: (1) In view of the petitioner's activities, is the conduct found by the Board to constitute unfair labor practices within the scope of the National Labor Relations Act; (2) if Congress has proscribed such conduct, has it exceeded its power to regulate commerce among the several States? The Polish National Alliance is a fraternal benefit society providing death, disability, and accident benefits to its members and their beneficiaries. Incorporated under the laws of Illinois, it is organized into 1,817 lodges scattered through twenty-seven States, the District of Columbia, and the Province of Manitoba, Canada. As the "largest fraternal organization in the world of Americans of Polish descent," it had outstanding, in 1941, 272,897 insurance benefit certificates with a face value of nearly $160,000,000. Over 76% of these certificates were held by persons living outside of Illinois. At the end of that year, petitioner's assets totalled about $30,000,000, in cash, real estate in five States, United States Government bonds, foreign government bonds, bonds of various States and their political subdivisions, railroad, public utility, and industrial bonds, and stocks. From its organization in 1880 until the end of 1940, the Alliance spent over $7,000,000 for charitable, educational, and fraternal activities among its members. During the same period, it paid out over $38,000,000 in "mortuary claims." Petitioner directs from its home office in Chicago a staff of over 225 full and part-time organizers and field agents in twenty-six States whose traveling expenses are 643 Opinion of the Court. borne by Alliance and who receive commissions for new memberships. Since its 1939 convention, Alliance has admitted no more "social members." Thereafter, all applicants have been required to buy insurance certificates providing various types of life, endowment, and term coverage. These policies contain the typical loan, cash surrender value, optional settlement, and dividend provisions. Petitioner spent over $10,000 for advertising outside of Illinois during 1941. It employs a Georgia credit company to report on the financial standing and character of the applicants, and reinsures substandard risks with an Indiana company. Alliance lodges are organized into 190 councils, 160 of which are outside the State of Illinois. The councils elect delegates to the national convention, and it in turn elects the executive and administrative officers. The Censor of Alliance is its ranking officer and he appoints an editorial staff which publishes a weekly paper distributed to members. Of the 6,857,556 copies published in 1941, about 80% were mailed to persons living outside of Illinois. This summary of the activities of Alliance and of the methods and facilities for their pursuit amply shows the web of money-making transactions woven across many state lines. An effective strike against such a business enterprise, centered in Chicago but radiating from it all over the country, would as a practical matter certainly burden and obstruct the means of transmission and communication across these state lines. Stoppage or disruption of the work in Chicago involves interruptions in the steady stream, into and out of Illinois, of bills, notices, and policies, the payments of commissions, the making of loans on policies, the insertion and circulation of advertising material in newspapers, and its dissemination over the radio. The effect of such interruptions on commerce is unmistakable. The load of interstate communication Opinion of the Court. 322 U.S. and transportation services is lessened, cash necessary for interstate business becomes unavailable, the business, interstate, of newspapers and radio stations suffer. Nor is this all. Alliance, it appears, plays a credit rôle in interstate industries, railroads, and other public utilities. In 1941, it acquired securities in an amount in excess of $11,000,000, and sold or redeemed securities costing more than $7,500,000. Financial transactions of this magnitude cannot be impeded even temporarily without affecting to an extent not negligible the interstate enterprises in which the large assets of Alliance are invested. That such are the substantial effects on interstate commerce of dislocating labor practices by insurance companies, was established before the Labor Board in at least thirteen comparable situations.1 The practical justification of such a conclusion has not heretofore been challenged. Considerations like these led the Board to find that petitioner's practices "have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce," and were therefore "unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the 1 Matter of John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., 26 N. L. R. B. 1024; Matter of Life Insurance Co. of Virginia, 29 N. L. R. B. 246; Matter of Life Insurance Co. of Virginia, 31 N. L. R. B. 674; Matter of Supreme Liberty Life Insurance Co., 32 N. L. R. B. 94; Matter of Life Insurance Co. of Virginia, 38 N. L. R. B. 20; Matter of Colonial Life Insurance Co. of America, 42 N. L. R. B. 1177; Matter of Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 43 N. L. R. B. 962; Matter of Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 46 N. L. R. B. 430; Matter of Northwestern Mutual Fire Association, 46 N. L. R. B. 825; Matter of Peoples Life Insurance Co. of Washington, D. C., 46 N. L. R. B. 1115; Matter of Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 47 N. L. R. B. 1103; Matter of Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 49 N. L. R. B. 450; Matter of Life and Casualty Insurance Co. of Tennessee, 53 N. L. R. B. 1196. See also Labor Board v. Bank of America, 130 F.2d 624, 626. 643 Opinion of the Court. meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)," and as such, prohibited by § 10 of the Wagner Act. By that Act, Congress in order to protect interstate commerce from adverse effects of labor disputes has undertaken to regulate all conduct having such consequences that constitutionally it can regulate. Labor Board v. Jones & Laughlin Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 31; Labor Board v. Fainblatt, 306 U. S. 601, 607. With negligible exceptions, Congress did not exercise its power to regulate commerce prior to its enactment in 1887 of the Interstate Commerce Act. 24 Stat. 379, 49 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. Since that time it has frequently chosen, as the Statutes at Large abundantly prove, to regulate only part of what it constitutionally can regulate. Again, half a dozen enactments, other than the National Labor Relations Act, are sufficient to illustrate that when it wants to bring aspects of commerce within the full sweep of its constitutional authority, it manifests its purpose by regulating not only "commerce" but also matters which "affect," "interrupt," or "promote" interstate commerce. See, for example, Act of June 18, 1934, § 2, 48 Stat. 979, 18 U. S. C. § 420a; Bituminous Coal Act, § 4-A, 50 Stat. 72, 83, 15 U. S. C. § 834; Civil Aeronautics Act, § 1 (3), 52 Stat. 973, 977, 49 U. S. C. § 401 (3); Federal Employers' Liability Act, § 1, as amended, 53 Stat. (part 2) 1404, 45 U. S. C. § 51; Transportation Act of 1920, § 307 (b) (3), 41 Stat. 456, 471; Tennessee Valley Authority Act, § 31, 49 Stat. 1075, 1080, 16 U. S. C. § 831dd. In so describing the range of its control, Congress is not indulging stylistic preferences; it is mediating between federal and state authorities, and deciding what matters are to be taken over by the central Government and what to be left to the States. United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100; Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, 316 U. S. 517. And so in this Act, unlike some federal regulatory measures, see Federal Trade Comm'n v. Bunte Bros., 312 U. S. 349, 351; Kirschbaum Co. v. Wal |