been done by other committees, but not the kind of comprehensive survey you think the needs of the problem require.

Dr. HEARD. With this one distinction: You see, most of these other committees have been active during the period of an election.

Senator CHURCH. Our investigation would not take place during that period.

Dr. HEARD. That is right.

Senator CHURCH. Are you acquainted with the kind, the character, of the investigations that this committee has undertaken, the general character of the investigations that we have undertaken and have conducted in the past 2 or 3 years?

Dr. HEARD. Yes.

Senator CHURCH. Are you acquainted with the kind of staff that the committee has, the investigative staff?

Dr. HEARD. No, I am not acquainted with the staff, except two or three people I have met.

Senator CHURCH. You wouldn't be in a position to give us your opinion as to whether or not the committee's present staff is constituted in line with the recommendation you have given, or the kind of staff you think the requirements of this inquiry would require?

Dr. HEARD. I am simply not acquainted with the present staff.
Senator CHURCH. I have one further question, Dr. Heard.

It is obvious from the lines of inquiry that you have recommended that the scope of such an investigation would be very broad indeed. There are many activities that are the constitutional prerogatives of people who live in a free society or of organizations that are formed within a free society, with which this Congress has no power to interfere.

There are many other activities that are listed here that I should think would fall in the category of political activity of a character that promotes the general interest, and that the Congress would not want to interfere with, even though it might have the authority to do

SO.

Finally, there are certain kinds of political activities that we might take exception to and might want to undertake to change through legislative action.

So this whole question becomes a very complicated one and needs to be very carefully appraised if we are to do good with our work and not bad with our work.

Dr. HEARD. That is right.

Senator CHURCH. For that reason, I take it, you would recommend not a limited or myopic kind of approach, but, rather, the kind of comprehensive survey that you have recommended to this committee. Am I correct?

Dr. HEARD. That is correct. I make no judgment as to whether this is the best group to do it, you understand. I have no opinion on that. Senator CHURCH. I believe that is all, Mr. Chairman."

Senator MUNDT. I have one question.

I thought you said something about favoring a sort of two-stage investigation. You said there was one phase to which this committee might appropriately devote itself, and there is another overall picture that might require a year, 18 months, 2 years, or, maybe, like our permanent Senate Investigating Committee, forever, because you never really get to the end of the road under a comprehensive thing.

Would you indicate what you have in mind concerning the initial stage, or perhaps the pertinent points to which the committee might now devote its attention?

Dr. HEARD. What I mean there is: If you were to decide that you wanted to do something, whatever you could, between now and the end of January 1960, I think that through

Senator MUNDT. You may not be familiar with the proceedings of the committee, but that decision has already been made. It was made nearly 2 years ago. So we are bound by our own commitment to try to do something. We would like some guidance from you as to what you think we might be able to do.

Dr. HEARD. I think you might do something. I say again, without any knowledge of this staff, that I think for the procedure to be fruitful a considerable amount of staff preparation would have to go into the groundwork prior to calling for testimony.

I think you could ask questions about practices, general practices, because we are not in the process of an election. It is pretty difficult, sometimes, to go back a year and a half, 2 years, 4 years, or 6 years, and ask people what happened then.

But I believe you could develop useful opinion and some facts about what general practices are on the part of corporations and of labor unions.

You couldn't pin testimony down to events that are in process, but I believe that you could certainly obtain from officials of both types of organizations some information. If you can succeed in getting away from the accusatory atmosphere, I believe you can.

Senator MUNDT. May I say we are not interested in putting any body in jail for something that happened in the past. We are simply trying to avert these improper practices from occurring in the future. Dr. HEARD. That is correct.

Senator MUNDT. We would approach it on that basis. In our other investigations, we have had the accusatory. But our thought here was to be exploratory, investigative, informative, so that perhaps something we do now might result in a little more appropriate political behavior in 1960, 1962, and 1964.

Senator Goldwater?

Senator GOLDWATER. Doctor, in 1957 you reported from your studies that there was an amount of money spent in the 1956 elections, if my memory serves me correctly, of around $170 million.

Dr. HEARD. In the fall of 1956 I reported on the basis of the most careful work we could do, that in 1952 the total expenditures in the country, out-of-pocket expenditures, not contributions in kind, but out-of-pocket expenditures, for all offices, both nomination and election, came to $140 million.

Senator GOLDWATER. Did that include local offices?

Dr. HEARD. Yes, sir.

Senator GOLDWATER. That was everybody running for office?
Dr. HEARD. That is correct.

Senator GOLDWATER. Did you come to a conclusion as to what was spent in 1956?

Dr. HEARD. During the campaign before the election was over, I was asked for an estimate by the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, and as I recall I made a guess, I think, of $175 million.

I would now say, if you asked me the same questions, that probably the increase was certainly no more than 10 percent, and perhaps less. So I would say in 1956, using 1952 as a basis and without repeating the whole estimate for 1956, I would say $150 or $155 million.

Senator MUNDT. This committee, of course, being a branch of the Federal Government, has no jurisdiction in local elections, State elections, legislative elections. We might have jurisdiction in the field of Federal elections. Certainly Congress has.

Did you break down those figures, therefore, after showing the total amount of out-of-pocket expenditures, by whatever rule of thumb you used, in dealing with Federal elections, Congressmen, Senators, and the President?

Dr. HEARD. No, sir; I did not. I don't think I can.

We broke it down in this way: Expenditures made at the national level, expenditures made at the State level, and at the local level, the three levels.

But the moment you tried to determine how much was spent for a candidate you get into the unsolvable problem of one committee supporting more than one candidate and you don't know how much to allocate. I cannot give you an estimate on that.

Senator GOLDWATER. With our understanding that we don't have your breakdown as to possible Federal expenditures in 1956, what was the total reported to the Clerk of the House for Federal elections in 1956? Do you recall?

Dr. HEARD. No. The total that we accumulated with the Senate Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, I think, was $33 million, as I recall. I do not know how much was reported to the Clerk of the House, though.

Senator GOLDWATER. So there is a vast amount of this that is not being reported and is being spent in ways other than direct contributions to a candidate?

Dr. HEARD. Not all of the money that is contributed to candidates is reported. I don't mean that it is illegal. I mean some States don't require it, and some committees are not, under present law, required to report it.

Senator MUNDT. There are certain kinds of expenditures in which a candidate participates which are not reported, which are not necessary to report.

Dr. HEARD. That is correct.

Senator GOLDWATER. Such as the things we discussed earlier, radio, television, newspapers, that are contributed by interested parties. Frankly, I don't see how you can stop that, because it involves freedom of speech.

Dr. HEARD. That is true.

Senator GOLDWATER. If you, for instance, want to support a candidate in North Carolina by buying 15 minutes of radio time, and you, yourself, are extolling his virtues for that 15 minutes, I don't think we can ever stop that. I don't think we should attempt to. Senator MUNDT. We should not try.

Senator GOLDWATER. Let me ask you this: Do you agree that this is a problem, this matter of spending for elections?

Dr. HEARD. Yes, sir; I think I do.

Senator GOLDWATER. Would you agree with my earlier statement that the long range danger might not be so long range, and that is

the control of what are now two parties, built more or less on philosophical grounds, would be controlled by organizations interested only on economic grounds, which would be labor on one side and business or management or corporations, what you call it, on the other?

Dr. HEARD. I think I would take a more moderate view than that I understood you to express. It seems to me that the political interests that are involved are very diverse and numerous in the country. Certainly Senator Ervin and I know that in North Carolina there is more than just the polarity that you alluded to. I do not believe that I would go along with the statement that the danger is as great as I understood you to express it.

I feel very deeply that public confidence in governmental and political procedures is highly important. Rightly or wrongly, I do feel that in the press and in the public generally, and even among the elected officials, there is some unhappiness and lack of confidence in the way we finance our campaigns. I think this, itself, is very undesirable. I think it creates a lack of faith, if you wish, in democracy, in the kind of government we have.

am interested in it from that point of view very much. I think that that is a sufficient point of view, really, to be concerned about it. When I look at all of the 50 States, and the different conditions that exist, and all the different kinds of factors that elected officials must pay attention to that are not always economic at all and which are not always directly related to organized labor-not always directly related to corporate management-I feel that this diversity of interest gives us a much broader and more stable base, I guess, for political influences than this polarity you suggest.

Senator GOLDWATER. I do not want to run this on, but let us look at the ultimate result of propaganda campaigns conducted by both sides, that is, the labor movement and the business movement.

Would it not be possible sometime in the future to have a person's opinion as to what is best for him associated with a business candidate or a labor candidate rather than a candidate of the Democratic side or the Republican side?

I am looking at this thing in the long range, knowing what can be accomplished by these methods. I might say I think both of them are attempting to do that today.

Dr. HEARD. Well, I suspect that as long as we maintain a twoparty system, our experience would be not unlike that in Great Britain, perhaps, where, as you know, the Labor Party, which explicitly represents the labor movement, has, because it has appeal for a majority of the electorate, has tended to be more moderate, whereas the Conservative has tended to be less conservative.

As I understand the studies of British elections, the constituents of both parties, actually, are not so clear-cut as the labels on the parties would suggest. That is, the Labor Party must gain the support of a great many people outside the labor movement, people who may not necessarily feel identified with the labor movement, in order to win.

I would think that probably our experience in this country would be of that nature, rather than the kind of experience you get in countries where there are multiparty systems and where political parties can become almost equivalent to pressure groups.

In some of the continental countries you see this, where there might be a half dozen parties, one exclusively labor, one agrarian, and so

on.

Senator GOLDWATER. I will wind this up.

You made the statement that you feel that this should be a deep study by a competent staff, that it would take 12 to 18 months. Senator Mundt has informed you that we have already made up our minds about this subject, that if we are going to go into it, this present staff would do it. I think we have to be practical in this. I can't envision either party passing a resolution creating a committee to investigate political activity of unions, if this particular party is in, and corporations, if the other party is in. I am in the position of the man who has his last horse on the pony express, that you have to get there with this horse.

If we fool ourselves by saying that this problem is going to be solved by some committee that is to be appointed in the next session of this Congress, we are just playing around with foolishness. That is the practicability of politics, and you recognize it the same as I recognize it. It is one of the reasons I suggest why under the Republicans we were unable to get what I consider an adequate investigation in this field. It has been a problem under the Democrats.

I feel we have been unable to get into this field. We do have examples of staff studies that I think indicate that a staff could do this, at least do preliminary work, a staff that is not made up of political science experts, necessarily.

Under the Gore committee, at the request of Senator Curtis, one investigator went to Flint, Mich., and I think turned in a rather startling report.

(At this point Senator McClellan returned to the hearing room.) Senator GOLDWATER. In the last committee I served with, with the present chairman, the Special Committee To Investigate Political Activities, Lobbying, and so forth, a team of two or three went into Flint, Mich., and turned up a rather detailed report. These men, as I understand, were auditors. There was an election going on at the time.

They were, of course, met with much hostility.

But in spite of that, they turned up some very remarkable figures that I felt should have been pursued, but which were not. There are a number of excellent books on the subject. I have a rather complete library which indicates a lot of academic work has been done.

The gentleman to follow you, Dr. Petro, has written three books. The best and latest one is "Power Unlimited; the Corruption of Union Leadership," which touches on this.

"Labor Unions and Public Policy" by Drs. Chamberlain, Bradley, Riley, and Pound.

"Management vs. Teamsters," "Union Solidarity," "The Union Member Speaks"-there are a number of books.

The latest that I put into the record by the University of Michigan shows that three out of five union members in that State do not want their unions in politics.

So we do have some academic bases to go on. CIO and the Democratic Party," I presume. of that book? Is it comprehensive?

You have read "The

What do you think