Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 34

American Government and Politics: The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act

Author(s): Belle Zeller

Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Apr., 1948), pp. 239-271
Published by: American Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1949730
Accessed: 28/05/2010 18:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The American Political Science Review.

Brooklyn Collee
Althoughthe need for such action had long been apparentin Washing-
ton, it was not until 1946that a federalstatute was enacted for the regula-
tion of generallobbying activities. Prior to that year, Congresshad, on a
numberof occasions,investigated lobbying practices, and as a result had
enacted measureswhich reached a limited number of groups engaged in
them. The Public Utility Holding CompanyAct of 1935,the congressional
act in 1936 afFectingthe shippinginterests, and the ForeignAgents Regis-
tration Act of 1938wereimportantregulatorymeasures,but they reached
only a few of the groupsexertingdirect and continuousinfluencein Wash-
ington. The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of August 2, 1946, is
more generalin its coverage;and it has been in force long enough forits
effectivenessto be tested.
In this article, it is my purpose (1) to supply a brief historical back-
groundfor the measurereferredto; (2) to examinethe statute's provisions;
(3) to appraisethe objections raised to it; (4) to examine the actual ad-
mixiistrationof the act and point out the difficultiesof enforcement,par-
ticularly dunng its first year; and (5) to offer recommendationsfor
strengtheningthe law.

Bills to regulate lobbying appeared in Congressas early as 1907 and

were introducedfrom time to time thereafter.In 1928, Senator Thaddeus
H. Carawayof Arkansasintroduceda bill which only the Senate passed.l
In defending his measure, the Senator pointed out that there were be-
tween 300 and 400 "alleged associations"listed in the Washington t@le-
" . . . 90 per cent of which . . . are fake associations organized for the sole purpose of
profit for those who are at Washington, [and] are engaged in obtaining money from
those who live away from Washington under the belief that they are promoting some
theory of government in which they are interested, or protecting or advancing the
interests of some business in which they are engaged. Ninety-five dollars out of every
hundred that the public pays to these alleged associations go into the pockets of the
promoters of these fake associatioas. It might be safely said outside of a dozen there
LSnot a penny paid tofthese associations that is not worse than wasted.... 82

1 S. 1095, 70th Cong., 1st Sess.

2 Senate Report 342, 70th Cong., lst Sess., 1928, pp. 2, 3.
240 R8lXw

In 1935, the excesses of the utility lobbies attracted

tion. Of their activities, the House Rules Committee nation-wideatten-
said on February27,
1936: " . . . the campaignto influenceutility holding
was probably as comprehensive,as well managed, as
well financedas any in the history of the country.tAs persistent, and as
a result of this pub-
licity, bills to regulatelobbying pouredinto the
Senate bill 2512, sponsored by Hugo L. Black of
Alabama, and H. R.
11663,introducedby Howard W. Smith of Virginia,
passed their respec-
tive houses,but their wide divergence,although
bridgedby the conferees,
did not meet wlth congressionalapproval,and they
failed to become law.4
However, Congresswas determinedthat the utilities should
not escape
regulation,irrespectiveof the fate of the generallobbyingbill.
It therefore
wrote into the Public Utility Holding CompanyAct of
1935, not only the
provision that utilities should not contribute to party
but the additional stipulation making it campaign funds,
" . . . unlawfulfor any personemployedor retained
pany,or any subsidiarycompanythereof,to present, any registeredholdingcom-
ter affectingany registeredholding companyor anyadvocate,or opposeany mat-
beforethe Congressor any memberof committeethereof, subsidiarycompanythereof,
[Securitiesand Exchange]or FederalPowerCommission,or beforethe Commission
employeeof eithersuch Commission,unlesssuch personshall any member,officer,or
sionin such form and detail and at such time as the file with the Commis-
regulation3 Commissionshall, by rulesand
or orderprescribeas necessaryor appropriate
forthe protectionof investorsor consumers,a in the publicinterest or
statement of the subject-matterin
respectof which such personis retainedor employed, the natureand characterof
suchretaineror employment,and the amountof
ceivedby such person,directlyor indirectly,in connection receivedor to be re-
Thelaw furtherrequiresthat financialstatements be
filed with the Com-
mission"within ten days after the close of each
calendar month during
suchretaineror employment."6
Encouragedby its successin passingthis legislationconcerning
licutility holding companies,Congressturned its the pub-
attention the following
yearto the lobbies of the shipbuildersand ship
operators;and in 1936 a
statutesimilarly regulated these pressure interests
through registration
withthe United States MaritimeCommission.6
With war clouds hangingover Europe,and activity of
foreigIlagents on
3 HouseReport2081,74th
Cong.,2ndSess,p. 3. Anearlierinvestigationoflobbying
practices in whichthe National Associationof Manufacturers
occurred in 1913. Cf. House Report113, 63rdCong.,2nd Sess. Eguredprominently
4 House Report 2925, June
2, 1936.
6 IJ. S. Code,1940,title 15, ch. 2C,
secs. 79(h) and 79(i). See also FormsU-12(1)
A and B of the Securitiesand ExchangeCommission.
6 See U. S. Code, title 46, sec. 1225;
U. S. MaritimeCommissionGeneralOrder
No.9, July 13, 1937;and Forms807-1 and 807-2,
togetherwith accompanyingin-
structions for suchforms.

the propagandafront intensified, Congresstook a protective step in 1938

by passing the first Foreign Agents RegistrationAct (amendedin 1942),
requiring that every person who i8 an agent of a foreign principal
shall file with the Secretaryof State a statement describingin detail the
nature of his activities. The law provided also that political propaganda
disseminatedby such agents shall be so labeled and copies of such matter
filed with the Librarianof Congressand the Attorney-General.Under an
executive order, effective June 1, 1942, President Roosevelt transferred
to the Department of Justice the administration of registering foreign
agents. Registrationstatements, open to public inspection, had thereafter
to be filed with the Attorney-Generalevery six months, and a copy of
each registrationstatement had to be furnished the Secretary of State.
It should be particularlynoted that the Attorney-Generalwas required
also to make reports from "time to time" to Congressconcerningthe ad-
ministrationof the act.7
In reportingthe special areas of lobbying activity upon which Congress
has acted, it is perhaps well to include the amendment to the Criminal
Code in 1940. This forbade anyone to endeavor: " . . . corruptly or by
threats of force, or by any threatening letter or communication. . . to
influence,intimidate, or impede any witness . . . in connection with any
inquiry or investigation being had by either House, or arIycommittee of
either House, or any joint committee of the Congress of the United
States . . . " or by such methods to attempt to interferewith the proper
administrationof law or proceedings of inquiries. The above language
appearssufficientlybroad to cover the "influence"exerted by lobbyists
upon Congress.8
In studying the problem of lobbying regulation at the federal level,
much can be learnedfromthe experienceof the states, thirty-five of which
regulate lobbying in some way.9 Of the thirty-five,twenty-five now pro-
vide for the registrationof legislative agents and legislative counsel em-
ployedin suchcapacityfor compensation.The secretaryof state is the officer

7 U. S. Code,title 22, secs. 611-621; ExecutiveOrderNo. 9176,

Vol. 7, June, 1942, p. 4127. See Reportof Attorney-Generalto the Congressof the
UnitedStates on the Administrationof the ForeignAgentsRegistrationAct of 1938
as amendedfor the periodfrom June 28, 1942,to December31, 1944 (June, 1945).
AlsoKarlE. Ettinger,"ForeignPropagandain America,"PublicOpinionQuarterly,
Vol. 10 (Fall, 1946), pp. 32>342.
$ U. S. Code,title 18, sec. 241a, approvedJanuary13, 1940.
9 A fuller story of the state lobby laws has been told elsewhere.See especially
E. B. Logan, "Lobbying,"Supplementto thc Annals of thc AmericanAcademyof
Politicaland Social Science,July, 1929; Belle Zeller,"State Regulationof Lobby-
ing," in TheBookof theStates,1948-49, pp. 12G130; Belle Zeller,PressurePotitics
in New York(1937),pp. 251-262, for detailedexaminationof the admisiistrationof
the New YorkState lobbyinglaw.

with whomthe statementsare customarilyfiled.The requiredinformation

usually includesthe name and addressof such agents, by whomemployed,
date of employment,durationof employmentif it can be determined,and
the special subject of legislationto which the employmentrelates. Seven-
teen of the twenty-five states also require the filing of statements of all
expensespaid, incurred,or promisedin connectionwith the promotionof
legislation; thirteen require that these expense statements be filed
withinthirty days after the adjournmentof the legislature,and two within
two months after. In 1945, both Nebraska and WisconsinamendedthQir
statutes to providefor the filing of expense statements duringthe legisla-
* *

tlve sesslon.
These state lobbyqingpronsions have at least established the principle
that the public has a right to know who are the paid lobbyists and what is
the source of their funds. It must be said, however, that the record of
lobby control in most states relrealsthat it has not been as eflective as it
should be, because faulty definition has failed to include the pressure
groups as well as their paid agents, and because of inadequate enforce-
The year 1946 seemed propitiousfor the enactment of a generalfederal
lobbying law. For one thing, the first year after the cessation of the war
witnessedan unprecedentedamount of lobbyingin connectionwith many
controversialquestions before Congress-particularly veterans' housing,
price control, public power projects, and strikes. President Truman in-
serted in the preparedtext of his Jackson Day address on March 23,
1946, a declarationthat "my friends in Congresshalre got to make up
their minds whether they're for the veterans' rights or whether they are
goingto bow to the realestate lobby.''10SenatorMurrayof Montanacalled
attention to a "smallruling clique in the AmericanMedical Association"
whichis trying to defeat "the Administrationplanfor Congressionalhealth
Earlier, on March 11, 1946, Speaker Rayburn had called attention to
lobbying activity in another area, when he stated from the floor of the
H:ousethat "this town, for the past six months, has been seething with
lobbyists" out to kill rural electrification and public-owned power in
general.l2The nert day ChairmanSabath of the Rules Committee offered
a resolutionproposingthat a special committee be establishedto investi-
gate "any and all groups which have or are engaged in present propa-
ganda campaignsor lobby to defeat legislative measuresfor the relief of
the acute housing shortage . . . to abolish or weaken price control; all
New YorkTimes,Mar. 24, 1946.
11F. M. Brewer, "Congressional Lobbying," EditorialResearchReports,Vol. 1,
No. 18 (May 8, 1946), p. 320.
12 Con. Rec., Vol. 92, p. 2156.

groups which have or are engaged in the power lobby." This resolution
was revised by the Rules Committee, directing that the investigation be
made by the Rules Committeeitself, and that lobbying activities by fed-
eral agenciesand employees as well as by private groupsbe covered.l3
Even before these and other attacks upon lobbying activities in 1946,
the Special Joint Committee on the Organizationof Congresswas giving
its attention to the need for a congressionallobbyinglaw. In fact, the Com-
mittee on Congressof the AmericanPolitical Science Association, under
the chairmanshipof Dr. GeorgeB. Galloway,who later was namedresearch
staff director of the Joint CongressionalCommittee, had recommended
in 1945 "that all groups,representativesof which appear before congres-
sionalcommittees,shouldregisterandmake full disclosureof theirmember-
ship, finances,etc.''l4
Many complaints of the attempts of organizedpressuregroups to in-
fluence the decisions of Congresswere heard during the hearings of the
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, although extensive
endence on the need for lobbying legislationwas not given at these hear-
ings.ls In its report to Congresson March 4, 1946, the Joint Committee
recommended"that Congressenact legislation providingfor the registra-
tion of organizedgroupsand their agents who seek to influencelegislation,
and that such legislation include quarterly statements of expenditures
made for this purpose.''l0On August 2, 1946, the President signed the
Legislative lleorganizatioIlAct, Tit]e III of which is the "Regulationof
Provisionsof the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act are set down in
sections 302-311 inclusive. Section 307 is designed to define the applica-
tion of the title and includesany person (definedas an individual,partner-
ship, committee, association, corporation,and any other organizationor
group of persons) "who by himself, or through any agent or employee or
13 This resolution, H. Res. 557, and another similar in purpose, H. Res. 416, in-

troduced earlier by Representative Smith of Maine, did not pass.

14 The Reowanization of (7ongress; A Report of the Committee on Congress of

the American Political Science Association (1945), p. 80.

15 Hearings before the JoiIlt Committee on the Organization of Congress, 4 parts,

79th Cong., 1st Sess., March 13, 1945, to June 29, 1945. See especially helpful com-
ments of George H. E. Smith, research assistant to the Senate minority leader at
page 411 of these hearings. After the close of the hearings, the writer submitted to
the Joint Committee, upon request, a memorandum on the subject of "Federal Reg-
ulation of Lobbies." For the text of this memorandum, see Print of Joint Committee
on the Organization of Congress, June, 194B, pp. 65-69, and George B. Galloway,
Congressat the Crossroads(1946), pp. 302-307.
6 Senate Report 1011, 79th Cong., 2nd Sess, p. 27.
r Public Law 601 (Senate Bill 2177), 79th Cong., 2nd Sess.

other persons in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, solicits,

collects, or receivesmoney or any other thing of value to be used princi-
pally to aid, or theprincipalpurposeof whichpersonis to aid, in the accom-
plishment of any of the following purposes: (a) The passage or defeat of
any legislation by the Congress of the United States. (b) To influence,
directly or indirectly,the passage or defeat of any legislation by the Con-
gress of the United States." (Italics mine)
Section 305 states that every person receiving any contributions or
expenditures for the purposes designated in (a) or (b) of section 307,
shall file with the clerk of the House of Representativesonly, between the
first and the tenth day of each calendarquarter,a statement containing
the name and address of each person who has made a contribution of
6500 or more, and the name and address of each person to whom an ex-
penditureof $10 or more has been made, with the amount, da-te,and pur-
pose of such expenditure.The clerk of the House supplies Form A for the
informationrequiredunderthis section.
In section 308, the act requiresany personwho engages himself for pay
or for any considerationfor the purpose of attempting to influence the
passage or defeat of any legislation to registerboth with the clerk of the
House and the secretaryof the Senate "beforedoing anything in further-
ance of such object." The registrant must state his name and business
address,the name and addressof the personby whom he is employed and
in whose interest he appearsor works,the durationof such employment,
how much he is paid and to receive, by whom he is paid or is to be paid,
how much he is to have for expenses?and what expensesare to be included.
FormB is suppliedby the clerkand the secretaryfor this information.
Each person who registersin accordancewith section 308 between the
first and tenth day of each calendarquarter,must also file with the clerk
and the secretary,so long as his activities continue, a detailed report "of
all money received and expended by him during the preceding quarter
calendarin carrying on his work; to whom paid; for what purpose;and
the names of any papers periodicals,magazines,or other publicationsin
which he has caused to be published any articles or editorials; and the
proposed legislation he is employed to support or oppose." Successive
reports within a calendaryear must be cumulative. This informationis
filed on Form C. All reports and statements under the lobbying act must
be made underoath (section309).
All informationrequiredto be filed underthe provisionsof section 308
is to be compiledby the clerk and the secretary,acting jointly, as soon as
practicable after the close of the calendar quarter, and printed in the
Congressional Record.The statements requiredby the title are to be pre-
served for a periodof two years, and to be opento publicinspectionduring
this interval (section 306). Any person who violates the provisionsof this

title, upon conuction, is guilty of a misdemeanorand may be punished

hy a fine of not more than $5,000 and/or imprisonmentfor not more than
twelve months. Such convicted person is also debarred for a period of
three years from influencing,directly or indirectly the passage or defeat
of legislation. Debarredlobbyists who continue their activities are guilty
of a felony (section310).
In section 308, the act furtherspecificallyexempts from its application
(1) any personwho merelyappearsbeforea committee of Congressin sup-
port of or opposition to legislation., (2) any public official acting in his
officialcapacity; (3) any owner, publisher,or employee of a newspaperor
other regularlypublished periodicalacting in the regular course of busi-
ness. Nor does the act apply to party committees or to practices and
activities regulated by the Federal Corrupt Practices Act (sections 307
and 311). The Report of the Joint Committee on the Organizationof
Congressadds furtherthat the lobbying title does not apply in any man-
ner to persons who appear voluntarily without compensation,and con-
cludes the category of exempt groups by stating that the law "does not
apply to organizationsformedfor other purposeswhoseeforts to influence
legislation are merely incidental to the purposes for which formed.'l8
An examinationof the remarksof RepresentativeHoward W. Smith on
the floor of Congress,June 17, 1936, indicates that the Joint Committee
took over the Congressman'sexact words in noting this last exception.l
Many organizationshave turned to this last statement in the Com-
mittees report for clarificationof legislative intent, and for an explana-
tion of the words {'principally"and "principal"in section 307. Their fail-
ure to complywith the provisionsof sections 305 and 307 is based largely
upon defining "principal" as "primary" or "major." There is little
doubt that a literal readingof the provisionsof the lobbyingtitle presents
a mass of contradictionsand ambiguities As a criminalstatute, it is tech-
nically defective because such statutes are construed strictly and must
defineprohibitedacts with certainty.20
The Joint Committeeon the Organizationof Congressstated that sec-
tion 307 defines the application of the title.2' Section 307, then, may be
construedas conflictingwith sections 305 and 308. As noted above, section
307 refersto anyone who solicits, collects, or receives money; section 305,
however, is not limited merely to those who receive contributions, but

18 SenateReportNo. 1400,79th Cong.,2nd Sess., May 3l, 1946, p. 27.

19Con. Rec., Vol. 80, p. 9751.
20 Screwsv. UnitedStates,325 U. S. 91, at p. 136:{It is axiomatic,of coursetthat
a criminalstatute must give a clearand unmistakablewarningas to the acts which
will subject one to criminalpunishment.And courts are without powerto supply
that which Congresshas left vague."
21 SenateReportNo. 1400+79th Cong.,2nd Sess., p. 28.

includes personswho expendmoney for such purposes.

Does this Inean,if
section 307 controls, that that part of section 305 dealing
with expendi-
tures is superfluous?There are organizations which
hold that they do
not solicit or receivefunds for the przncipal purposeof lobbying, but who
nevertheless expend money in hiring professionallobbyists.
The imple-
mentationof the act, duringthe firstyear, clearly
demonstratedthat many
organizationsare holding section 307 the key to the coverage of
thus exempting from the strongest provisions of the the act,
act organizations
whose legislative activities are not their pr?naipal
concern, and who are
carefulnot to accept funds earmarkedfor lobbying.
The relationship of sections 307 and 308 is
ambiguous. By its terms,
section 308 appearsto exclude the definitionsof section
307. Section 308
covers engagements "for the purpose of attempting
to influence the
passage or defeat of any legislation." Many persons who
have registered
under this section call attention to the minor
proportionsof their time
devoted toinfluencing legislation. In so doingsthey are
lowingthe interpretationthat section 308 does not standundoubtedlyfol-
alone, that sec-
tion 307 qualiSes this section as well, and that
influencing legislation
must be their "principal"actinty before registrationis
required. How-
ever,section 308 should be construedas bringingwithin
its scope persons
paid for performingservices if any part of that job-
no matter how in-
finitesimal is concerned with influencing legislation. To
support this
position,it is not necessary to go further than to point out
that section
308exemptsfrom registrationpublic officialsacting in
their officialcapac-
ity. Except for a very small group of legislative
representativesof public
agencies,no reasonableinterpretation could consider
public officials as
principally engagedin influencinglegislation.22
The legislative history of the bill does not establish
theintention or the aim of Congress.Representative beyond any doubt
Dirksen, a member
ofthe Joint Committee on the Organizationof
Congress,stated on the
floorof the House when the lobbyingsection was under
"The question has been raised as to whether or not
an organization that pays
aman to be vigilant upon legislation here would
have to schedule all of their assets
andall of their receipts, and probably file a very long
clerkof the House. That is certainly not the administrative record with the
intention of the committee. There are
someclarifying sections and some exclusions which
you will find in section 308....
Whatwe are trying to do here is to reach those
whose principal purpose, not inci-
dentalpurpose, but whose principal purpose is to
come here and endeavor to influ-
encethe passage of legislation either by bringing
about its defeat or its enactment."23
22 For an examination and
interpretation of the provisions o-fthe Federal Lobby-
ingAct, see the brief filed on January 28, 1948,
by the National Association of
Manufacturersin the District Court of the United States for
the District of Colum-
See also Columbia LawRevtew,Vol. 47, Jan. 1947, pp. 9S109; YaleLaw
Vol.56, Jan. 1947, pp. 30S332. Journal,
23 Con. Rec.,Vol. 92, July 25,
1946, p. 10138; on June 17, 1936, Representative

However,a widerpurposeof the legislationwasunderstoodby Senator

LaFollette,chairmanof the Committeeas seen in his discussionwith
SenatorHawkeson the floorof the Senate,the day afterRepresentative
Dirksenmadehis comments:
"Mr. HAWKES: Mr. President,will the distinguishedSenatorfrom Wisconsin
give me his opinionon one subjectwhichhas been broughtto my attentionby some
of the finest organizationsin the United States? They are somewhatconcernedlest
the provisionin the reorganizationplan againstlobbyingmight be construedto ap-
ply to institutionssuch as the United States Chamberof Commerce,for instance,
whichwasorganizedat the requestof the Presidentof the United Statesto assemble
informationand makeit availableforreadyreferencefor membersof his Cabinetand
the variousgovernmentalagencies.I shouldlike to have the Senatorfrom Wiscon-
sin expresshis opinionwhetherit affectsthese fine iIlstitutionswhich are a part of
ourbusinessand industrialsystemin the UnitedStates.
"Mr. LAFOLLETTE: SOfar as any organizationsor individualsare concerned,. . .
it will dependon the type and characterof activity whichthey undertake....
"Mr. HAWKES: Just a moment,Mr.President.Wouldnot the SenatorfromWis-
consin be willing to expressan opinionregardingsuch organizatioDsof years and
years standing?
"Mr. LAFOLI.ETTE: I cannottell the Senatorwhetherthey will comeunderthe
act. It will dependon the type of activity in whichthey engage,so far as legislation
is concerned.
"Mr. HAWEES: Does not the bill containlanguageto the etTect'if they are or-
ganizedto do a businessof lobbyingprincipally'?And doesnot that meansomething
to the Senator,who knows, of course,that there is not a businessorganizationor
chamberof commercein the United States whoserepresentativesdo not cometo see
Senatorsand Representativesand interviewthem regardinglegislation?
"Mr.LAFOLLETTE: It will all dependon the type of activity that is carriedon. I
cannot give the Senatora blanketinterpretation."24

Smithsaid: "It [the lobbyingbill] does not apply to organizationsformedfor other

purposeswhoseeffortsto influencelegislationare merelyincidentalto the purposes
for whichformed.... '} (Cf. Cong.Rec.,Vol. 80, p. 9751.)
24 Contrastthis languagewith that of RepresentativeSmith,who sponsoredlob-
bying legislationten years earlier:"The amendmentproposesto changethat lan-
guage by strikingout the words 'in whole or in part' and by inserting the word
'principally.'The reasonfor that amendmentis, it was broughtto my attention,
and I think to the attention of other membersof the committee,that there were
manyorganizationsof nationalscope whohave largemembershipsof thousandsand
someof millionsof membersorganizedprincipallyfor other purposesthan affecting
legislation,but manyof those organizationsdo fromtime to time becomeinterested
in legislationS
andthey undertaketo do somethingabout it. It was not thoughtnec-
essaryor properthat that class of organization,becausea minorpart of its funds
weredevotedto purposesof influencinglegislation,shouldbe requiredto reportall
of the dues of their hundredsof thousandsof members,and for that reason this
amendmentis proposedso that it wouldnot apply except wherethe moneyis col-
lectedfor the principalpurposeof undertakingto influencelegislationor the election
of Federalofficers.... " Cf. Con. Rec.,Vol. 80, March27, 1936,p. 4535.
Unlikethe billssponsoredby SenatorCarawayin the 70th CongressandSenator
Black in the 74th Congress,the lobbying act of 1946 does not specifiaallydefine
lobbying. It may, of course,be construedthat the acts and practicesunder the

It certainlywould appearthat the Joint Committee

in 1946 was think-
ing of a broad applicationof the legislation,when in its
reportit listed the
followingthree distinct classes to which the lobbying title
applied chiefly:
"First: Those who do not visit the Capitol but initiate
over the country in the form of letters and telegrams, propagandafrom all
basedentirely upon misinformationas to facts. This class many of which have been
tions will be requiredunderthe title, not to cease or of personsand organiza-
respect,but merelyto disclosethe sourcesof their curtail their activities in any
whichthey are disbursed. collectionsand the methodsin
"Second:The secondclassof lobbyistsarethosewho are
Capitolunderthe falseimpressionthat they exertsome employedto cometo the
bersof Congress.Theseindividualsspend their time in powerful influenceover mem-
ertingsome mysteriousinfluencewith respect to the Washingtonpresumablyex-
legislationin which their em-
ployersare interested,but carefullyconcealfrom members
happento contactthe purposeof their presence.The title in Congresswhom they
tails their activities. It merely requiresthat they shall no wise prohibitsor cur-
sourcesand purposesof their employmentand the amountregister and disclose the
of their compensation.
"Third:Thereis athird classof entirely honest and
ofbusiness,professional,and philanthropic respectablerepresentatives
organizationswho come to Washington
openlyand franklyto expresstheir views for or against
servea usefuland perfectlylegitimatepurposein legislation,many of whom
tationsof theiremployerswtthrespectto legislationwhich the views and interpre-
likewisebe requiredto registerand state their compensationconcernsthem. They will
and the sourcesof their
employment. 2226

As an additional example of its broad intention, the

Joint Committee
inits two reports on the Legislative Reorganization
Bill, stressed pressure
groupsratherthan the individualsemployedby them.
"Massmeansof communicationand the art of public
thepressuresupon Congressas to distortand confusethe relationshave so increased
licopinion.... In orderto enable Congressbetter to normalexpressionsof pub-
evaluate and
dence,data, or colnmunicationsfrom organizedgroupsseekingto determineevi-
tiveaction, we recommendthe adoptionof legislation influencelegisla-
allgroupsengagedand individualsemployedin such requiringthe registrationof

statutes that requirethe filingof statementsmay be called

1095of the 70th Congress:"A lobbyist, within the meaning lobbytng.In Senate bill
shall of this act, is one who
engage,for pay, to attempt to influencelegislation,
the NationalCongress."In Senatebill 2512of the 74th or to preventlegislation,
consistof any effortto influencethe actionof Congress Congress:"Lobbying. . .
beforeit, whetherit be by distributingliterature,appearing uponany mattercoming
Congress, or interviewingor seeking to interview individual beforecommitteesof
Houseof Representativesor the Senate." membersof either
These definitionswere patternedafter the broaderone in
1913,which definedlobbying as the "activities of a person orthe a
House report of
seekingto influenceCongressin any way whatever."Cf. body of persons
Cong., House Report 113, 63rd
2nd Sess., 1913, p. 15.
2G SenateReport1400,79th Cong.,
2nd Sess., May 31, 1946,p. 27.
26 Senate Report1011, 79th
Cong.,2nd Sess., Mar.4, 1946,pp. 26-27.

And again, the Committeestated:

"A pressure-groupeconomy gives rise to governmentby whirlpoolsof special-
interestgroupsin whichthe nationalwelfareis often neglected.... Withoutimpair-
ing in any way the right of petition or freedomof expression,Senate 2177 provides
for the registrationof organizedgroupsand their agents who seek to influencelegis-
lation.... Full informationregardingthe membership,sourceof contributions,and
expendituresof organizedgroupswouldprovehelpfulto Congressin evaluatingtheir
representationsandweighingtheirworth.Publicityis a mildstep forwardin protect-
ing governmentunder pressureand in promotingthe democratizationof pressure

Still another fact to note in defense of the broaderintent of Congress

in 1946is that the lobbyingtitle is part of an omnibusbill dealingwith the
improvementof the organizationand operation of Congress,and did not
come as a demandto check the predatorypressuresupon that body.
Almost immediately after the lobbying title became effective, many
organizationscalled upon their counsel for advice concerningthe applic-
ability of the statute. The Chamberof Commerceof the United States,
in its long memorandumof interpretation,reasoned that it did not fall
within the purview of sections 305 and 307, and consequentlydid not file
under Form A. The memorandumadded: "It should be noted, however,
that even though the organizationdoes not have lobbying as its principal
activity, an employee or other person paid by the organizationwho has
lobbying as his principalactivity may be subject to the act."28Was the
Chamberof Commerceplaying safe when two of its representativesfiled
under Form B prepared for the information required in section 308-
one of whom stated in his report that his salary was $15,000 per annum,
"although rtot more than one-fourth is paid for the {principalpurpose'
of influencinglegislationas definedin section 307"?29
Some tax-exempt organizationswere even more cautious, and filed no
informationunder any of the forms for fear of jeopardizingtheir exemp-
tion under the Internal Revenue Code. For example, this is the legal ad-
vice given to one such organization:
"Sincethe principalpurposeof the Anti-DefamationLeagueis not to influence
legislation,the mere publicationof the LegislativeInformationBulletin, even if it
may be considereda publicationwhichdirectlyor indirectlyaffectsFederallegisla-
tion, the ADL will not be compelledto registeror file.The answershouldbe the same
even in contemplationof the added factor of a Washingtonrepresentativewhose
incidentalpurposemay be to influenceFederallegislation.Section 101(6) of the In-
ternal Revenue Code providesthat a tax exempt organizationloses its tax exempt
status if a substantialpart of the activity of such organizationis the influencingof
legislation.Such a provisionmay be importantif the legislativeactivity of a tax-ex-

27 SenateReport 1400, 79th Cong.,2nd Sess., p. 5.

28 Memorandumdated Aug. 28, 1946, p. 6.
29 Cong.Rec., Vol. 93, Jan. 3, 1947, p. 52.
250 R^V1ffi+

empt organization,or its Washingtonrepresentative,

merely'incidental'activity."3° becomesgreaterthan that of

On the other hand, counsel for the AmericanFarm

Bureau Federation
recommendedthat the Federationand its employees,
in influencinglegislation, register under the forms substantially active
supplied by the clerk
of the House and the secretaryof the Senate. "While
tainty exists as to the meaningand scope of the Lobbying
Act, I am of the
view that the only safe course which your organization
can pursue is to
registerunder the act." lIe argued that section 307 is
"made decisive as
to what personsor organizationsmust registerunder
section 305. Unfortu-
nately, section 307 is ungrammaticalalmost to the point
of being unintel-
The lobbyingtitle shows poor draftsmanshipin other
respects.The sec-
tions do not constitute an integrated whole. There is
every indication
that the drafting was done hurriedly, with little fresh
thinking on the
problem. All examination indicates heavy dependence
upon the bills
in the 74th Congress,ten years earlier, and the SenatorHugo L. Black
lobbying title of the
LegislativeReorganizationAct of 1946 is only a slightly
of these earlier bills.82Occasionallywords are used modifiedversion
loosely; for example,
abroaddefinitionis given of a "person"in the
introductorysection of the
title,and yet in sections 304 and 308 "individual"is
used where "person"
wouldappear to be more accurate. Furthermore,it
would be difficultto
understandhow an association under this broad definition
of "person"
couldbe punished by imprisonment,unless individual
members of the
groupwere held responsible,in which event a serious
question of depriva-
tionof constitutionalrights could be raised. There are
unclear,and what
appear to be contradictory,referencesto the FederalCorrupt
insections 307 and 311. Section 307 exempts fromthe PracticesAct
provisionof the lob-
bying title, "duly organizedstate or local committeesof a
Section 311 states that "this title shall not apply to practices
or activities
regulated by the Federal CorruptPractices Act." If any
referenceat all
t° However,subsequentlyPaul Richmanfiledunder
was Form B and stated that he
employedby the Anti-DefamationLeagueof Bw'nai B'rith
than five per cent of his time, if any, to activity withinthe and that he "devotes
Con. Rec.,Vol. 93, May 12,1947, p. 5210. termsof the statute."
31F. E. Lee to Donald Kirkpatrick,Nov. 26, 1946. The
Federation AmericanFarm Bureau
filed quarter]yA reportsin 1947, and four individuals,
filedB reports,indicatingannualsalariestotalling includingthe
four $37,000.Each of these
representativesalso filedquarterlyexpense
J2H.R. 11223 and H.R. 11663 and S. 2512,statements underForm C.
all 74th Cong. See House Reports
2081and 2925, 74th Cong.,2nd Sess., and Con. Rec.,Vol. 80,
p. 4535.

to the CorruptPracticesAct is necessaryhere, it should be a simplestate-

ment exemptingthe political committees of all legally recognizedparties
from the provisions of the lobbying act. Others may be requiredto file
under the Lobbying and Corrupt Practices Acts, depending upon their
The President received the bill at the fag end of the session and signed
it without detecting a typographicalerror that had slipped into the bill
while it was being engrossed. In section 304, the word "rendered"was
used instead of "render."The clear intention was that every person who
receives contributionsof $500 or more for the purposestated in the law,
"shall within five days after receipt thereof renderto the person or or-
ganization for which such contributionwas received a detailed account
thereof...."33 Unimportant as this error was, it received considerable
unfriendly newspaper notice. In fact, on two occasions,two newspapers
dealt with it exclusively. The BostonGlobe34 stated: "In any event, an
act of Congress will be requiredto correct the mistake, and lobbyists
subject to registration may take advantage of the situation and delay
signing up." The BufJalo News85 concludedits remarkson the matter this
way: "You can never tell when a tense situation will be renderedpast,
present, or future on CapitolHill."
Vigorous opposition was directed against section 308 of the statute
because it exempts from its purview "any public official acting in his
official capacity." This opposition to the exempting of "tax-paid lobby-
ists" was voiced by a numberof organizationsat the time they filed their
own reports under protest, or while questioning the applicability of the
law to their particularorganizations.On October9, 1946, the representa-
tive of the National PhysiciansCommitteefor the Extension of Medical
Servicewrote to the clerk:
" . . . the proponents of the legislation in question have indulged in every form of
propaganda and publicity they have been able to devise, including the most venom-
ous and unfair attacks, in the leftist press and otherwise, on the National Physicians
Committee and its personnel. This propaganda has, in the main, originated in and
stemmed from certain branches of our Federal government where there are long
established and well entrenched groups of professional bureaucrats, with distinctly
collectivist leanings, who are completely committed to the cause of socialized medi-
cine and all that it entails.
"These propagandists, with the resources of the United States treasury behind
them, can and do flood the magazines and newspapers with press releases, in addi-
tion to the millions of government bulletins and publications that are constantly go-
ing out to the general public, all at public expense. But, by the express terms of the
Lobbying Act, these bureaucrats are not "lobbyists"; they need make no reports
33 The term "render" appeared in the bill read to the House of Representatives.

Cf. Cong. Rec., July 25, 1946, p. 10137. "Render" also appears in section 3 of H.R.
11223 (74th Cong.) and H.R. 11663 (74th Cong.).
34 Aug. 10, 1946. JbAug. 13, 1946.

and are subject to no penaltiesregardlessof the millionsof dollarsof Uncle Sam's

moneythey see fit to spend,or howeverthey spendit."36
In its memorandumon the lobbying law, the Committee on Constitu-
tional Government,a private organization,said:
"If Congresswereproperlyconcernedabout lobbying,it rnightand should long
ago have dealt with lobbyingby the bureausset up by the Presidentand itself. For
it was shown by RepresentativeGross of Pennsylvania(Con. Rec., Mar. 19, p.
A1583)that 'the worst and most persistentlobbying comes from the variousbu-
reauswithinthe Governmentin theireffortto perpetuatethemselves.'As one of the
severalillustrations,he mentionedthat when SecretaryIckes appearedbeforethe
InsularAffairsCommitteehe was surroundedby 19 lieutenants.... We just re-
centlysaw the spectacleof the O.P.A.whippingCongressto a standstillanddictating
to the President.During the debate, SenatorTaft exhibited (July 9, p. 8569) the
O.P.A. as the worst of all lobbyists, usingthe radio and propagandizingin a highly
organizedmanner,everlreachinginto the schools. The bureaucratswere so impu-
dent that they burntTaft in effigyin Ohiothreetimes."37
There is, of course,ample precedent,in states with lobbying legislation,
for exemptions of public officialswho, in their official capacity, attempt
to influencelegislation. Furthermore,the purpose of lobbying legislation
is to identify the many private organizationsand their agents who are
engaged in promoting or opposing legislation. Surely the Congress has
othereffectivemeansat its disposal for example,the powerof the purse-
to discipline such representativesof the federal agencies who, with too
much zeal, or in other objectionableways, go about the business of influ-
encingthe legislationthey are expected to administer.It would seem that
appropriatelocal-governmentagencies, not to mention the constituents
of electedlocal officials,could adequatelydisciplinestate and local officials
who use objectionablemethods in influencingfederallegislation. It would
seem reasonable,however,to withhold exemptionof the provisionsof the
lobbying title from associations of public officials,supportedin whole or
in part, from private sources.
It has been charged also that the lobbying law is unconstitutionalbe-
cause it violates AmendmentsI and IV of the Constitution of the United
States-that the act is in contravention of the specific constitutional re-
quirementsthat freedom of speech and the right to petition the govern-
mQntshall not be abridged.One organizationfurtherclaimed:
3B See also New YorkTimes,Oct. 18, 1946, and Philadelphia Inquirer,Oct. 21,
1946.E. H. Cary,chairmanof the NationalPhysiciansCommittee,testifiedon April
19, 1946,beforethe Senate Committeeon Educationand Laborthat his grouphad
spent $905,359on variousformsof educationalworkduringthe last five years. The
Committeereportedexpendituresof $200,541.63for the first nine months of 1947
underthe FederalLobbyingAct.
37 First memorandumon Regulationof LobbyingAct, p. 3, probablylate Au-
gust, 1946.The Committeefor ConstitutionalGovernmentreportedunderthe Lob-
bying Act expendituresof $465,080.97for the periodAugust2, 1946, throughJune
30, 1947,but gave no informationon contributors.

"Therequir0mentsof this lobbyingact . . . makea systemof searchof the books,

records,and papersof the citizen without probablecause,supportedby oath or af-
firmation,in violation of the Fourth Amendment.The recordswhich the Act pre-
scribesto be kept by the citizenareto be used againsthim whenoccasionoffers....
In the courtsof the States, as well as in the Federalcourts,the constitutionalpro-
visions protectingthe citizen against unreasonablesearchesare liberallyconstrued
in favorof the man.... Whereverthereis a lack of jurisdictionaloath, or of absolute
clarity as to 'the place to be searched,and the persons. . . or things to be seized,'
the man wins."38
Thisis a gravecharge,and it seemsdifficultto substantiateit. It may
be in orderto questionthe relevancyof injectingthe FourthAmendment
into the discussion,and of the reasoningon the partof thosewhotry to
makeout a case againstthis federallaw by citing a seriesof Supreme
Court decisionsinvolving that amendmentbut bearingquestionable
relationto this problem.39 Twenty-fivestates now requirelobbyists
to register,andseventeenof thesealsorequirethe filingof expensestate-
ments.Are pressuregroupsso influentialin thesestates as to be largely
responsiblefor the lax enforcementof these laws, and hencefind it un-
necessaryto raise objectionsto them on constitutionalgroundsor any
Surelythe regulationof the lobbydoesnot interferewiththe constitu-
tionalrightof freespeech,or free press,orthe rightof petition.It denies
to no onethe highrightof appealto Congressorto the publicforthe pur-
poseof influencinglegislation.40Penaltiesareprovidedfor thosewhofail
38 Memorandaon "Regulationsof LobbyingAct" of the Committeeon Con-
stitutionalGovernment,p. 3 of the firstmemorandum,and p. 4 of the second.
39 Casescitedin the two memorandums preparedfor the Committeefor Constitu-
tional GovernmentincludeBoyd v. United States (1886),116 U. S. 616;Kilbournv.
Thompson(1881),103 U. S. 168; Sinclairv. United States (1929),279 U. S. 263; In-
terstate CommerceCommissionv. Brimson(1894),154 U. S. 447; F5ederalTrade
Commissionv. AmericanTobaccoCompany(1924), 264 U. S. 298; Hale v. Henkel
(1906),201 U. S. 43; McGrainv. Daugherty(1927),273 U. S. 135;Jonesv. Securities
andExchangeCommission(1936),298 U. S. 1. The brief filedby the National Asso-
ciationof Manufacturersin the United States FederalCourtin Washington,I). C.
on January28, 1948,also ho]dsthat the lobbyingtitle is in conflictwith the Consti-
40 SenatorMcClellan,who preferred a lobbyingbill limitedto professionallobby-
ists, viewedthe lobbyingtitle beforepassageas a possibleviolationof civil liberties:
" . . . I should not be willingto pursuethat purposeso far as to preventthe presi-
dent of the F5ederal FarmBureau,or the presidentof the C.I.O., or the presidentof
the A. F. of L., or the presidentof the FarmersUnion,or the secretaryof the Cham-
ber of Commerce,.. . from comingto Washingtonand conferringwith their con-
gressionaldelegationunlessthey agreedto registerand to reportas professionallob-
byists. I do not think the legislationshouldgo that far . . . I think it is probablyan
abridgmentof the civil rightsof our citizensand our constituents,whenand if the
law does go that far . . . I do not think we have a right to say to any citizen of our
State that, as a citizenof the State, he cannot,withoutbecominga criminalbecause
of violationof this proposedlaw, contacthis Senatoror his Representativein Con-

to comply. Of course, one of the objec-tiares of the law is to put the whole
game of perniciouslobbying out of existence and the bad pressureboys
out of work. This legislation may be regardedas a curb against abuse of
petition, as laws of libel and slander are in the case of freedomof speech
and of press. It seems doubtful that section 310(b) debarringa convicted
person from engaging in lobbying for a period of three years would be
consideredunconstitutionaleither as a bill of attainder or as violative of
due process.However,it is difficultto see how this penalty can be applied
to associationsas "persons."No constitutional question has been raised
in those seven states that have similarprovisionsfor debarment.41
A further complaint is made that the lobbying act does not go far
enough. For example,the AmericanLegion and its legislative representa-
tives, who filedpromptlyunderall three forms,complain(1)that the names
and addressesof contributorsof $499 or lesser amounts do not need to be
reported; (2) that many "witnesses"who appear before committees are
"lobbyists"and "shouldbe requiredto state underoath on whose author-
ity they are testifying, and also to state in detail whether they received
any travel expenses or other gratuities for their testimony, with the
amounts thereof," (3) that all lobbyists who claim to represent organiza-
tions submit sworn statements as to their membershipand by what au-
thority they speakfor such membership.
In connectionwith the first point while some abuses may be practiced
in the collectionof contributionsunder$500, it would appearinadusable
to changethis figure.The listing of names and addressesof thousands of
personswhose contributionsmay reallybe dues paid by membersof legiti-
mate associationsshould not be requiredor encouraged.In respect to the
second recommendationof the American Legion concerning witnesses
before committees, rules of the two houses can adequately meet this de-
sirablesuggestion.The Legion'sthird suggestioncan be met by amending
the statute to requiresuch informationto be furnishedpreferablyby the
organizations,rather than by their paid legislative agents. It is evident
that the lobbyingtitle stressesthe financialbackgroundof lobbyists rather
than the representativecharacterof the organization,or the processesby
whichits decisionsare reached.42

gress and discuss with him legislation in which he or his organization is interested,
unless he registers and acknowledges himself to be a lobbyist." Cf. Con. Rec., Vol.
92, June 10, 1946, p. 6678.
l Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Da-
kota, Wisconsin. See Belle Zeller, "State Regulation of Lobbying," TheBookof the
States,!948-49, pp. 129,130.
42 That the latter was also the intention of the Joint Committee on the Orgamzb
tion of Congress may be seen from its report, Senate Report 1400, 79th Cong., 2nd
Sess., p. 5.

Lastly, another complaint directed against the act is that it goes too
far that it is built on the uswarrantedassumption that all personswho
collect money for the purpose of lobbying may use it in degradationof
public policy, and that thereforeall personsshould be treated as potential
wrong-doers.It would be difficultto producerationalevidence supporting
this charge. The lobbying title does not draw a distinction between good
and bad lobbying. Its aim is to stress the public characterof those who
participatein influencinglegislation.
Wide coverage was given to the LegislativeReorganizationAct by the
newspapersof the country after the President affixedhis signatureto the
bill. On the whole, the press, in both its news and editorial columns, re-
ceived Congress'attempt to regulate the lobby favorably. The Cleveland
Plain Deselercommentededitoriallyon August 2, 1946: "Since most legis-
lation is sought or opposed by special interests, it is well to have these
special interests identified, and it is better to have the representativesof
the special interests conduct their activities in the open rather than in
secret and sometimes mysteriously. Thus it appears that Congress has
not only reorganizeditself but has brought about a reorganizationof the
lobbyists." On the following day, the Jo?brnalof Atlanta (Georgia) said
that "the requirementthat lobbyists register and disclose the source of
their funds will curb, though not eliminate, an ancient American dis-
grace." The WashingtonPost, in an editorial entitled "Goldfish Bowl
Lobbying,"noted that "legislatorswill be able to distinguishmore clearly
than ever before the plea of organized money from that of individual
citizens."43On the other hand, a number of newspapers,through feature
stories, highlightedthe vague terminology in the legislation under head-
lines that read: "New Lobby Law SpreadsConfusion,"44"LobbyingLaw
Stirs Confusionin Washington Many Puzzled Groups Ask Lawyers if
They Must Register under New Act,"45"LobbyingLaw Goes into ESect,
but Exact Meaning is not Clear,"46"Lobbyists Slow to Register,"47
"What'sa Lobbyist?"48

How has the lobbying title in the Legislative ReorganizationAct been

administered,particularly during the first year after it took eSect on
August 2, 1946?49With the 79th Congressalready adjournedon this date,
43 Aug. 26, 1946. 44 New YorkTimes,Aug. 10, 1946.
45 New YorkHeraldTribune,Aug. 4, 1946.
46 St. Louis Post Dispatch,Sept. 22, 1946.
47 JournalGazette, Fort Wayne, Ind., Oct. 10, 1946.
48 ChicagoTimes,Sept. 13, 1946.

49 The writer has had opportuxiity to examine, periodically, the reports filed un-
der the provisions of the Lobbying title with the clerk of the House of Representa-
tives and the secretary of the Senate, to talk directly with persons in these offices and

and afternumerousinquiries,the clerkof the Houseof

announcedthat the Lobbyingtitle wouldtake eSect at once.50
boththe interpretation To aid in
of and compliancewiththe act, the clerk'soffice,
in consultationwith the secretaryof the Senate,
threeforms,A, B, and C, on whichthe informationwasto be
set forth.51
Repliesin the negativeweregiven by the clerkand the
administrative secretaryfor
rulingsor opinionsrelatingto the interpretationand en-
forcementof the act. An earlyconferenceafterthe title became
tweenthe clerkandthe Attorney-General law be-
resultedin no officialinterpre-
tationby the JusticeDeprartment.b2It wasdeemedadvisableto let
statutetake its course,permittingthe courtsto renderdecision,the new
test be made.63 shoulda
Thefollowingreplyis typicalof the clerk'sinterpretation:
"The provisions of this act appear to be quite clear as
to its interpretation. There
remainbsonly the possession of detailed knowledge as
to the activities of a per-
son . . . in order to apply the test very specifically
set forth in the Act. It is the opin-
ionof this office that such a determination should be
made by the person who believes
hemay come within the provision of this law, and
that the Clerk of the House should
with those responsible for the drafting of the
legislation, to examine the memoran-
dumsof interpretation and advice prepared by counsel
for a number of organizations
affectedby the legislation, to communicate by telephone
and letter with some of the
counseland with a larger number of the Washington
lobbyists themselves, to ex-
aminethe press coverage from coast to coast on this
Lobbying title, and in some in-
stancesto talk directly with the Washington press
$° New YorkTimes,Aug. 10, 1946.
Unlike other titles in the Legislative Reorgani-
zationAct, Title III provided no specific date on which
it was to take effect.
bl In this connection, counsel for
the American Farm Bureau Federation com-
mented:"The simplification which the Secretary and
the Clerk have thus under-
takenis advantageous to persons required to register
under the Act, except that
FormA, which is for use by organizations, states
that it is filed under section 307,
thusimplying that any organization fi]ing it is
engaged principallyin lobbying." Cf.
letterof F. P. Lee to Dona]d Kirkpatrick, Nov. 26,
b2 Interview with H. Newlin
Megill, acting clerk of the House of Representa-
tives,Dec. 6, 1946; UnitedStatesNews, Vol. 31, Sept.
6, 1947, p. 70.
53 It was disclosed on December
25, 1947, that the United States Attorney-Gen-
had earlier appointed Irving R. Kaufman as his
special assistant to conduct an
investigationof lobbying activities. Cf. New YorkTimes,
Dec. 26, 1947, and inter-
viewwith Irving R. Kaufman, Jan. 2, 1948. On.
Jan. 14, the Attorney-General
announced that he had given Mr. Kaufman written
the authorization to appear before
grand jury in cases warranting prosecution; and on
March 23, it was disclosed
thata grand jury in Washington, D. C., had
started receiving evidence from the
Departmentof Justice on alleged violations of the
Lobbying Act. Cf. New York
Herald Tribune,March 24, 1948. On March 30, 1948, this grand
UnitedStates Savings and Loan League. Cf. New jury indicted the
York Times, March 31, 1948.
January 28, 1948, the National Association of
appears Manufacturers followed what
an unusual course when it appealed to the federal
action district court in a civil
for an injunction to enjoin enforcement of the
Federal Lobbying Act, which
a statute.

not makea deeisionfor him. Foryour eompleteinformation,additionaleopiesof the

formsdevelopedby this offieeto assist personsin eomplyingwith the provisionsare
herewith.These forms by their very nature tend to simplify the proeessof under-
standingthe applieationof thislaw.X254

On anotheroccasionthe clerkreturneda registrationon FormA with

the advice"that it shouldperhapsproperlybe filedin the name of the
organizationand swornto by you as the agent thereof."And againa
FormA was returnedbecauseit reflectedno information."It wouldap-
pear,"saidthe clerk,"thatsucha formshouldbe filedby the person. . .
withwhomyou areassociated,if they arereceivingany contributions or
expendingany moneyfor the purposesdesignatedin paragraphs(a) and
(b) of Section307.... In such a case, a statementby an organization
shouldreflectsometype of receiptor sometype of expenditureor some
information."55 However,this procedurewas soon changed.The clerk
nowfilesall reports,regardlessof the natureof theircontents.
The clerkmadethe followingreplyto the requestof the representative
of the People'sLobbyfor postponement in filinghis financialstatement:
"I notethat yourbasisforthis requestis yourpresentillness.Thereis no
authoritythat lodgeswiththe Clerkof the Housein the administration of
this act that wouldpermithimto vary the requirement of this statute."
Onebarometer formeasuringcomplianceis the numberof registrations
underthe lobbyingtitle duringits first year. A total of 216 different
organizationsfileda total of 450entrieswiththe clerkof the Houseunder
FormA.56Thesequarterlyreportsrangedfromone to fourfor each or-
ganization,and,unlikethe datafiledon FormsB andC, arenot published
in the Congressional Record.Furthermore, the data suppliedon FormA,
pertainingto the firstthreequestionson amountandsourcesof contribu-
tionsare meagerindeed.Fullerinformationis suppliedin answerto the
last-threequestionsconcernedwith the expendituresof the associations.
On the otherhand,too manwy amongthe 216 organizations that filedat
leastonceduringthe yearon FormA gaveno informationat all-"none"
orblankspacesappearingin answerto all six questions.57
Manyitemizedexpenditures, even of less than ten dollars,appearon
54 Clerkto EdwardA. Rumelyof the Committeefor ConstitutionalGovernment,
Ine., Oet. 10, 1946.The same advice was repeated subsequentlyby the clerkto of-
fieersof the organization.On July 8, 1947,Mr. Rumelywrote the elerk ". . . I pro-
test that I am not underany legalobligationto filereportsundersaid Aet, and again
requesta rulingon this questionfor futureguidanee."
55 South Trimble, elerk of the House of Representativesto CharlesE. Sands,
Nov. 20, 1946.
56By January31, 1948,an additionaltwenty-one"persons^' filedunderFormA.
67 Amongsuehorganizations werethe NationalFarmersUnion,the UnitedFresh
Fruit and VegetableAssoeiation,the Institute of Cookingand Heating Appliance
Manufaeturers,and the United Health League.
Bill) 'AirParents
. Eome
Inc 15,174.11
, 3,372.59
505 .58


separately attached sheets. These statements should, and most of them

do, include the expenses irlcurredby the lobbyists employed by the as-
sociation.However if the lobbyists' expensesare includedon Form A, this
does not absolve the lobbyists from registeringunder B and c.58
Among the organizationsthat indicated in detail not only all expendi-
tures, but also the contributors with their names, addresses, and the
amounts given, was the Citizens Committee on Displaced Persons. The
chief concern of this organization,which employed twenty-seven regis-
tered lobbyists, was to procurepassage of the Stratton Bill (H.R 2910).
The Committee reported on Form A that during the first six months of
1947 it received contributions amounting to $236,753.25and disbursed
The following list gives a representativesampling of the amounts re-
ported to have been spent by associationsduring the first six months of
AmericanFederationof Labor (in campaignto defeat Taft-Hartley

TownsendNational RecoveryPlan and W eek ly 236,599.42

NationalPhysiciansCommitteefor the Extensionof MedicalService. 135,367.86
National Associationof Electric C om panies 126,039.75

UnemploymentBenefit A dusors 25,157.79

AmericanFarm BureauFederation 23,097.12

* ........................ 9,875.40
National Conferenceof RailroadInvestors................................. .. 7,525.83
NationalFederationof Post Oice C le rk s 6,283.66
North Dakota ResourcesB o a rd 4,978.21
WesternDefense HousingCom pany 4,848.08

68 For example,J. Byron Wilson, chairmanof the legislative

committeeof the
NationalWoolGrowersAssociation,filedno B or C statements.He is reportedto be
oneof the best knownlobbyists on the HilL The National Wool GrowersAssocia-
tion,however,did reporton its FormA, filedon July 9, 1947,that Mr. Wilsonspent
atotal of $2,457.22duringthe firsttwo quartersof 1947,but madeno mentionof his
annualsalary.lIis colleague,J. M. JoIles,secretaryof the Aswsociation?
did fileualder
B and C.
.................................. ............. ......... 2, 576. 22


mericanVeteraDsof Word WarII .......................... - * 494 .20
National Committeefor 23trengtheDing
C ongress 248.20
LegislativeBureauof the CommunistParty, U S A 34.95

Twenty-two organizationsthat filed under Form A had no record of

having hired legislative agents. This, of course, is entirely possible under
the lobbying act, as the following statement, attached to the Form A of
the Committee for United States Information Abroad indicates: "This
is a volunteer committee composed of prominent individuals who are
publicly supporting legislation to continue a United States Information
program abroad. It has no paid employees other than the oflice staff
listed in the enclosedform A. therefore,we are returningthe blank forms
B and C."
Even among the organizationsthat filed under A are a number which
registeredunder protest or with reservations.For example, the American
LibraryAssociationfiled Form A with a statement that although this as-
sociation " . . . is of the opinion that the provisions of this Act do not
apply to its activities, we feel that the purpose of the Act merits the co-
operation of every association in the United States and is, therefore,
complyingwith the requirementsas a matter of policy.8859

The National Associationof Electric Companiesstated that it was very

"unwillingly"filing Forms A, BJand C " . . . for the informationof the
Congressof the United States underTitle III of the LegislativeReorgani-
zation Act of 1946, but seriously questions whether and to what extent
that Act appliesto this Association.The scope of that Title is not clearly
stated, and the forms have been preparedwithout the benefit of official
However, it is the informationrequiredunder Form A rather than B
and C that throws important light upon the organizationsthat influence
legislation although occasionally the registrant under B gratuitously
gives informationabout the associationemployinghim. The data required
in FormA emphasizewhat the state lobbyinglaws disregard,namely, that
it is more important to know something of the structure, finances, and
policy-makingmachineryof the organizationthan of the activities of the
lobbyist employedby the pressuregroup.
Thus a cardinal weakness in the administrationof the Lobbying title
must be judged by the failure of organizationsto file underForm A (some
of the most powerful and influential associations are in this category);
and secondly, by obserung that in many cases very meager information
was suppliedby organizationsthat did file.
59 Eowever,the AmericanLibraryAssociationlisted its expendituresbut not its
contributionson its four quarterlyForms A. Letter of Carl H. Milam, executiere
secretary,to LeslieF. Biffle,secretaryof the Se:llate,Oat. 10, 1946.

On Form B, 845 diSerent registrants recorded677

"persons"as their
employers.60If a liberalinterpretationhad been given to the
pal in section 307, the correlationwould
word princi-
have been higher between those
who filed under Form A in accordancewith sections
305 and 307 and the
employersof Form B registrantsreportingundersection
308.61These 677
organizations employed a total of 1,058 legislative agents.
among this latter figure were 74 who recordedthat they Included
were employed
by more than one person. In fact, these 74
represented287 organizations
and individuals. The record is held by WaValter F. Woodul, who repre-
sented 24 railroadsin Texas, Missouri, and California,
and the Imperial
Sugar Company of Texas. James E. Curry,
representativeof 18 Indian
tribes, is promisedten per cent of all recoveryin claims
plus "reasonable
fees for other work." Stephen Walter represents14
diflerent power com-
The registrationfiguresalso disclosethat a numberof
in their employ at the same time more than one associationshave
personwho is responsible
for the group's legislative work. The record is held
by the
National Recovery Plan. Thirty-four differentindividuals Townsend
from twenty-
five states filed under Form B and indicated the
Townsend National
RecoveryPlan as the organizationin whose interest they
were working.
Whilesome of the Townsend registrantsindicated they
were paid a flat
salaryof $50 or $75 a week, eighteen others indicated
that they received
as commissionsfrom 25 to 50 per cent of the
financial contributions or
duesof membersin their respectivestates. The
employeesat the national
headquartersin Cleveland listed salaries ranging from $4,000
to $7,800
and additional expense allowances.63The Citizens
Committee on Dis-
placedPersons followed the policy of having all of
their 27
includingofficeand field workers,file individualregistrations employees,
on Form B,
andthus a total payroll of $165,000 annually was
recorded.It seems un-
necessaryto add that the number of lobbyists employed
by any one
organizationdoes not indicate its strength or influence.
Congresshas not
adoptedthe programadvocated by the TownsendPlan, nor
did the Strat-
tonBill, urged by the Citizens Committee on
Displaced Persons,become
lawin 1947.
60 See Cong.Rec.,Vol. 93, Jan. 3, 1947,Feb. 5, 1947,May 12,
61 Althoughby January,1948, a thousandlobbyists had 1947,Aug. 15, 1947.
sented a total of about 750 employerorganizationsand registered,they repre-
Vo]. 93, Nov. 17, 1947; Vol. 94, Jan. 29, 1948. individuals.See Cong.Rec.,
62 It is possiblethat amongthese
74 registrantsare some who terminatedtheir
services with one organizationbeforebeing employedby another.
tothose who filedat differenttimes underFormB. A This may applJr
tion specificstatementof termina-
of employmentshouldbe requiredon FormC.
63 On Form A, the TowIlsend
National Recovery Plan, Inc.,
contributions of $216,146.34andexpendituresof $584,833.47. reportedfor 1946

Significantly,formergovernmentemployeeswereregisteredas lobby-
ists, but not to the extentthat one wouldexpectafterreadingthe state-
ments of the late SenatorCaraway.64 The statementsfiled underthe
lobbyingstatuteduringits firstyeardiselosedthat eightformermembers
of Congresswere registered,and severalformerofficialsof the federal
administrative branch.65
Sixty-five women are numberedamong the 845 individualswho
registeredas lobbyists.It has been estimatedthat their total salaryis
aboutS170,000peryearin a fieldof employmentthat is reputedto draw
downin salariesfouror five milliondollarsannually.The highestsalary
reportedfora womanlobbyistwas$7,000perannum,andthe nexthighest
was$6,400.66 The majorityof the womenlobbyists,however,drawannual
salariesrangingfrom $3,000to $4,000.Threemake less than $1,500a
year, whilea numberof the womenare volunteerworkersdrawingno
salary,but only necessaryexpenses.The largestnumberof womenreg-
isteredfor a singleorganization is the ten employedby the CitizensCom-
mitteeon DisplacedPersons.67
The highestsalaryon recordis $65,000paidto PurcellL. Smithby the
NationalAssociationof ElectricCompanies,who stated: "Onthe basis
of the activitiesof the Associationto date, I estimatethat not over 25
percent of my time is spenton legislativematterswithinpurviewof the
act."68The runner-upis StephenM. Walterwith an annualsalary of
ff4 House Joint Resolution 227, 70th Cong., undertook to prohibit former members
of Congress from engaging in the practice of lobbying, but the resolution did not
65 Former congressmen were Albert E. Carter, employed by the Pacific Gas and
Electric Company at $12,000 per annum; John A. Danaher of Connecticut, Revere
Copper and Brass, Inc., at $25,000 per year; Wesley E. Disney of Oklahoma, Na-
tional Gas Association of America, at $10,000 per year plus legal fees from other
groups; lVinder R. Harris of Virginia, Shipbuilders Council of America, at $15,000
per annum; Frits G. Lanham of Texas, National Patent Council, State Rights Asso-
ciation, and others, at a total of $16,000 per year; Robert Ramspeck of Georgia, Air
Transport Association of America, at $25,000 per year; H. Jerry Voorhis of Califor-
nia, Cooperative League of the United States of America, at $7,500 per year; Clifton
A. Woodrum of Virginia, American Plant Food Council, Inc., at $36,000 per annum.
Prominent among the other former public officials were Samuel Rosenman, em
ployed by the Associated Fur Coat and Trimming Manufacturers, Inc., at $40,000
per year; and William P. MacCracken, Jr. employed by Remington Rand, Inc., at
$12,000 per year, while his services to the American Optometric Association are paid
for from time to time, the amount depending upon the nature of the work and the
time involved.
66 These salaries are paid, respectively, to Margaret K. Taylor by the National
Cooperative Milk Producers Federation and Hilda W. Smith by the Committee for
the ExteIlsion of Labor Legislation.
67 In addition to the list published in the Congressional Record, see New York
Herald Tribune, May 15, 1947. 68 Cong. Rec., Vol. 93, Jan. 3, 1947, p. 54.

$52,000,while Ernest W. Greeneis paid $45,180 per annum as agent for

theHawaiian Sugar Planters Association.69Top labor leaders,as William
Green and Philip Murray, have not registered as lobbyists for their
respective organizations. lIowever, three legislative agents for the
AmericanFederation of Labor registered, each with $7,280 per annum
salary,and two for the C.I.O. at salaries of $6,000 and $4,820. It is per-
haps superfluousto note that some salaries are very low indeed, one
registrantrecording five dollars a year from the District of Columbia
Federationof Women's Clubs. There are also a number of volunteers,
even among the male representatives who have registered, although a
readingof section 308 of the Lobbyingtitle would appearto exempt agents
not employed for compensation.70
Approximately400 of the nearly 700 employersof registeredlegislative
agents came from various categories of business, whereas about 75 were
labor and governmentemployee associations.Agricultural,veteran, pro-
fessional, civic, and miscellaneousgroups made up the remainder.
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:Alaska, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii. In addition, or-
ganizations with addresses in Mexico, the Netherlands, Egypt, Cuba,
and the Canal Zone employed registeredlobbyists. About 172 organiza-
tions have Washington, D. C:., addresses; 107, New York addresses;
Illinois comes next with 43; then Californiaand Texas with 35 each. It
has been estimated that there are about three thousand lawyers in
Washington,D. C., more per capita than in any other city in the country.
A large number of the lawyers with District addresses represent, as
registered lobbyists, not only organizationslocated in the District, but
also organizationswith addresses elsewhere in the country, in the ter-
ritories,and in foreign countries.
Sixteen legislative agents during the first year requested that their
registrationsbe cancelled.Undoubtedlyseveral more of the 845 registered
lobbyists terminatedtheir services without specificallynotifying the clerk
of the House of Representativesor the secretary of the Senate. In these
cases, one could assume that the failure to file the quarterlyfinancialre-
port would indicate that their services as lobbyists were at an end. The
clerkso ruled in reply to the request of Samuel Rosenmanto "withdraw"
69 Representativesof the Associationof AmericanRailroadsand the United
States Beet SugarAssociationareeach paid annualsalariesof $40,000.
70 One Jostus R. Moll recordedthat he received "no money or other
consideration"from the Frisco System Boardof Adjustment,except the payment
of his annualdues, and he evexlpaid his own expeIlses.He added: "In additioIlto
I hope to receiveas other 'consideration'mentionedin the stat-
said coIlsideratioIl,
ute, the continuedloyalty and gratitudeof the membershipof FriscoSystemBoard
of Adjustment(or any otherbon>fidelaborunion)in returnfor my eSorts."
his registrationbecausehis activities in connectionwith
legislationfor whichhe representedthe AssociatedFur Coat andspecific
mingManufacturers Trim-
hadcometo anendwithits enactment.In reply,the
clerkstated:"Theact requirespersonsregisteredto file
as long as they are engagedin the activity,and therefore
failureto file
such quarterlyreportsis a noticeof withdrawalof registration
to the Act."71 pursuant
In answerto the questionon Form B, "the durationof such
ment,"eithera fixedterminationdate was stated, or, more employ-
such repliesas "indefinite,""at will," "undetermined," frequently
wererecorded.Oneof the representatives "permanent,"
of the AmericanFederationof
Labor,in answerto this question,said:"Untilfired,resigned,
dead."72 A ReverendJamesC. Oldenrecordedthat he was working
the AmericanNegro"untilthe problemis solved,t'and that for
he wassup-
portedin these laborsby "freewill offeringsof churchesand
individuals."73 interested
The numberof reportson FormC listingthe quarterly
individuallobbyistshas increasedwith each quarterlycompilation. of
example,149 filedfor the first quarter,198 for the second,539 For
third,631forthe fourth,makinga total of 1,517whofiledForm for the
thisfirstyear.74 C during
Most of the lobbyistshave compliedwith the filingof their
financialstatement,althoughsomestatementscamein slowly.In quarterly
berof cases,statementshave been filed for two quartersat a num-
the same
time.Furthermore, in a few cases, legislativeagents have erroneously
usedFormA insteadof C fortheirpersonalfilingrecords.This
undoubtedly wascausedby the use of the word"person,"whichnormally
meansanindividualratherthanan association.75 Financial
notrequiredfor any quarterin whichthe lobbyistdidno statementsare
ever,a fewlobbyistspreferto filethe C formandstate,for lobbying.How-
participationin lobbyingduringsecondquarter,andI shallnot be lobby-
ingon laborlegislationas set forthin first-quarterreport."76
The statute recognizesthe importanceof publicationsin
71 Apr.8, 1947.It is evidentthat it
wouldbe well if some
FormC specificallycallingfor a statementof resignationorprovisionweremadeon
72 Cong.
Rec.,Vol. 93, Jan. 3, 1947, p. 49.
73 Cong. Rec.,Vol. 93, May 12, 1947, p. 5209.
74 The last two quarterscoveredthe
firstsix monthsof the 80th Congress.By the
endof Jan., 1948,2,592 filedon Form C.
75 For example,this was doneby
CharlesE. Saltzman,who representedthe New
York StockExchangeuntil he resignedin July, 1947,to become
ofState. AssistantSecretary
76 Entriesfor Herman M. Booth,
Jr., in Con. Rec.,Vol. 93, May 12, 1947, p.
5216, and Aug. 15, 1947, p. A44B8.
legislation.FormC thereforeasksfor
cals,magazines,or other "thenameof any papers,
publications in periodi-
lishedany articlesor editorials." whichhe has causedto be pub-
either"nonef'wasrecorded,or noIn the overwhelming numberof cases,
are examplesin which some replyat all wasgiven.However,there
periodicalsto whichnews releases registeredagents listed newspapers
whichthey hadbeenpublished.77 and articleshad been mailed,or in
ismentioned,and that is Moreoften,a singlespecific
usually the organof the association publication
the lobbyist,e.g., "None
other than weekly newsletter employing
employer." publishedby
In answerto the last question
heis employedto supportor of FormC, "Theproposed
oppose," legislation
the repliestake different
Agentsfor the Citizens forms.
"H.R.2910, EmergencyCommitteeon DisplacedPersonsmentioned
(Stratton Bill)." In anothercase,there AdmissionsAct
Therepresentativeof the appearsa seriesof specificbills.
"Inaccordancewith the AmericanFarm BureauFederationreplied:
Federation, proposedlegislationon the following adoptedby the
ported or opyosed."78 Moreoften somesuch general matters has been sup-
givenas "anymargarine characterization is
and legislation,""measuresaflecting the ownership
operationof realestate,""legislation
aSectingthe mortgage-banking affectingcreditunion,""mat-
unemployed," "alllegislationof interestto"supporting legi31ationfor
budgetcontrol,portalto portal businesssuchas bills on
etc.," pay suits, generallabor,claims,
"legislationfor workers."
It has been observedthat 677
FormB. In addition,therewere22"persons"werelisted as employerson
not thatfiledunderA, but did
downof this total figureof 699 the FormB recordson file. A break-
member indicatesthat 498 wereassociations
organizations,while 201 were or
andcorporations. individualsor individualcom-
of nationallegislation? manyorganizations
area arereallyactivein the
SamuelH. Towerstated in the
that "lobbyinghas reached,if New York
present possible, a new pitch of activityin
sessionof Congress."79
Joseph and StewartAlsopreported
the presenceof lobbyists, the Eightieth
like a blowzy chorusgirl just Congressof the United States has
starting be-
somethingvery like the begintiingof on her secondpint of rye.... At this
. . the powerlobby is a lobbyists'carnivalhas been plainly
in Washington.Its grand the most active, and most conspicuouslywell-
panjandrum,the high-poweredP. L.
Con. Rec., Vol. 93, Aug. 15,
Con. Rec., Vol. 93, Aug.
1947, p. A4492.
15,1947, p. A4493.
Times, June 1, 1947.

sentative of the National Associationof ElectricalCompanies,gets a salaryin the

Hollywoodclass- $65,000annually,with an ample expenseaccount. But even the
prosperousSmith is less importantthan the numerousofficialsof the large uti]ities
companies.Theseconvergeon the Capitolat frequentintervalsto makethe boys on
the Hill see the powerquestionin the old free enterpriseway. Andbehindthese large
operators,thereis a wholenetworkof lawyerswith retainersfromthe utilities,bank-
ers with depositsfromthem, and otherinfluentialfigures.Thesespeakfromthe rot-
ing districtsto Washingtonwith voices of authority.Besidesstirringup the sordid
attack on David E. Lilienthal,the powerpeoplehave scoredmajorsuccessesat this
session with the AppropriationsCommitteest'80
In vetoing the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, President Truman
"Oneof the most stubbornobstaclesin the way of any constructivehousingpro-
gram has been the oppositionof the real estate lobby. Its membershave exerted
pressureat every point againstevery proposalfor makingthe housingprogrammore
eSective. They have constantlysought to weakenrent controland to do away with
necessaryaids to housing.... It is intolerablsthat this lobby should be permitted
by its brazenoperationsto block programsso essentialto the needs of our citizens.
Nothingcouldbe moreclearlysubversiveof representativegovernment.. . * 'y81
And again, Ned Brooks, Washingtoncorrespondentwrote:
{'Thereal estate lobby's series of successesin Congresshas soothedthe sting of
PresidentTruman'srebuketo it.. . . They have won all majorobjectivesin the cur-
rent session.... Six weeks beforethe session began, Boyd Bernard,then president
of the National Associationof Real Estate Boards,told membersto 'wait for the
New Congresson the Capitol steps with a proposalfor a cushioneddecontrolof
On May 12 afterthe Househad passedthe bill openingthe way for rentincreases
andrepealingmost of the Veterans'EmergencyHousingAct,the Associationnotified
members:'We won the first roundof rents throughthe passageof the WolcottBill.
This embodiessubstantiallythe programwe wanted.'
At the sametimethe Associationwassolicitingits membershipfor$5 contributions
to conduct 'legislative and researchwork'here in Washington.Officialsridiculed
statementsthat it had a $10,000,000fund availablefor putting over its program,
sayingits goal of voluntarysubscriptionwas only $59,000.82
The six leading organizationswhich constitute the real estate lobby in
Washingtonare: Association of Real Estate Boards, National Home and
Property Owners Foundation National Association of Home Builders,
BuildingsProductsInstitute, United States Savingsand Loan League,and
National Retail LumberDealers Association.Accordingto statements on
file in the clerk's and secretary's offices}their fourteen agents receive
salaries totalling $81,450 per annum. Only two of these organizations
during the first year filed under Form A. The National Association of
80 WaShi?X9ton Post, July 25, 1947,reprintedin Cong.Rec.JW1. 93, July 25, 1947,
p. A4067. 81 NeuvYorkTimes,July 1,1947.
82 Washinton Daily News, July 21, 1947, reprintedin Con. Rec., Vol. 93, July
25, 1947, p. 10353.
RealEstateBoardsreportedexpenditures of $39,355.72in 1946,
NationalHomeand PropertyOwnersFoundationrecorded,for aandthe
monthperiodin 1946,expenditures seven-
of $232,132.08.83
In the NewRepublic,HelenFullerrefersto the "80th
a demonstration Congress. . . [as]
of governmentby lobbyand steamroller."She indicts,
amongothers,the Associationof AmericanRailroadsfor its
budgetof nearly$5,000,000peryear,whichgot the lobbying
(exemptingrailroadsfromthe anti-trustlaws) throughthe Senate, Bill
the sugarinterestswhich put through"a sweet deal in the and
of 1948;"and the "big business'biggestguns,the N.A.M. Sugar Act
andthe U. S.
Chamberof Commerceconcentratedon laborfirst,taxessecond."84
Ontheotherhand,organizedlabor,withthe assistanceof
othercinc organizations, consumerand
wasfarfromquiescent.The registrations under
the Lobbyingtitle recordaboutseventy-fiveorganizations
the A. F. of L. and C.I.O.,as well as unafflliatedgroups. affiliatedwith
sums of money were spent in legislativebattles, particularly
over the
eliminationof pricecontrolsin general,rent controls,the
LaborAct, and the reorganization Taft-Hartley
of the LaborDepartment.As never
before,in enterprisingand novel ways, radioand newspaper
mentswereusedto carrylabor'smessageto millionsof people.advertise-
OnJune23, 1947,Representative Arendsof Illinois,on the floorof the
". . . Last week, during the discussionof the
President'sveto messageon labor,
some800lobbyistswerereportedto have cometo
caravan.They came here for the purposeof influencingthe in an automobileveto
LaborAct and to exerttheir influenceon membersof Presidentto veto the
Congressto sustainsuch veto.
"Whopaid their expenses?Have they registeredas
"There have been reports that labor organizations lobbyists?
$1,000,000 on lobbyingagainstthe laboract andfor sustainingthespent more than
expenses beenreportedas lobbyingcosts? veto. Have those
"Phil Murray,presidentof the C.I.O.,wasinterviewedon a
nightcalled Meet the Press. In that radio interview Mr. radioprogramFriday
talkedto variousmembersof Congressabout the act. Mr.Murraysaid that he had
thought that wouldcomeunderthe head of lobbying.He replied was askedif he
lieve so. Many membershad calledhim askingaboutthe act, that he did not be-
bying, he replied.Is that lob-
and is Mr. Murrayregisteredas a lobbyist?85
83 On Mar. 30, 1948, the federal
grandjury in Washington,D.
United States Savingsand Loan Leaguefor its failureto file underC., indicted the
Lobbying Law. Threeof its legislativerepresentativesdid file under Form A of the
afederalgrandjury broughtan indictmentagainstthe FormB. When
Estate NationalAssociationof ReaI
Boardsand the WashingtonReal Estate Boardon grounds of conspiringto
commissionratesfor realestate dealers,the presidentof the
saw in this action a reprisalfor disagreementwith the NationalAssociation
New YorkTimes,Aug.29, 1947. Administrationon housing.
84 Aug. 4, 1947.
85 Con. Rec.,Vol.93, June 23, 1947,
p. 7716. NeitherMr.Murraynor Mr. Green
hasregisteredunderthe lobbyingact.
The American 267
on July 11, 1947,Federation
a detailed
of Laborfiledunder
FormA for the first
the periodfrom April statement of receipts and time
23, 1947, through disbursements for
Federationhad received for June 30, 1947. It
its fight on showed that the
tionsaggregating the
unionsand from $992,452.30 from 102 of itsTaft-Hartley Bill contribu-
its local trade and national and
federal international
$819,648.18.86 The largest items in unions, and had spent
vertising,$423,821.58; for its expenses vvere:for
radio advertising, newspaperad-
tertainment, $61,673.54; and for $322,839.26; for radio en-
making the largest telegrams,
$90,000.00; contributionswere: United$3,641.33. The three unions
United Brotherhoodof Mine Workersof
$90000.00;and Carpentersand Joiners of America,
International America,
Warehousemen, and Helpers of Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chaufleurs,
figuresof the American America, $93,750.00.
organizedlabor must Federation
of of Labor,it can beJudging from these
have spent millions of concludedthat all
campaign to keep the dollarsin its
It is, of course, Taft-Hartley Bill from unsuccessful
sure difficultto estimate with the statute-book.
groups that are active
in the area of accuracythe numberof pres-
doubtedJy an understatement national legislation. It is
lobbying law, rnorethan that, even with a strict interpretation
files should have the 699 employersthat can now be of
Bureau registered under the found in
of Foreign and Lobbyingtitle. According
to the
and professional Domestic Commerce,more than 3,000
manner.87 associationsare represented national
The report of the at the capital in
Power and Political Temporary National Committee on some
1941,listed 381 national Pressures," preparedby Donald C. "Eco-
in organizations with permanent Blaisdell
Washington.88 Many of the representatives
during its first year are not, associations recorded
doubtedly of course,national under the lobbying
do not all have organizations,and un-
Eighty-two permanent representatives
organizations in this 1941 list registeredin in Washington.
law in 1946-47. some form under
Forthe period April
andexpenditures 1947, through December 31, 1947,
Judkins,Trade $834,565.38. receipts were
D. C., 1942),U. S. and ProfessionalAssociationsof the
tic Departmentof Commerce, UnitedStates
Commerce.The associations are Bureauof Foreignand (Wash-
(business broken
competitorsin one industry); downas follows:1,900trade Domes-
but composedlargely 300 other "business associations
of these areof of businessmen); associations"(not trade
specialinterestto 600 other
Federation, business, organizations(the
such as the American
300 AmericanFederationof FarmBu-
associations.The National Labor, Arnerican
there are MedicalAssociation);
about 1,500nationalor Associationof Manufacturers
trial regionaltradeassociations states
enterprises. of commercialor that
Report, No. 26, pp. indus-

During its first year, the federal lobbyinglaw has been of
limited effec-
tiveness. However, a sufficient number of registrants have
one way or another to justify an early revision.Soon complied in
afterthe law became
effective,an Omahanewspaperreported: "A cynical alliance
new threat to the LaFollette-Monroney stands as a
Act. The WorldHerald'sJack Jarrellreportsfrom
Washingtonthat some
of the nation's top lobbyists have joined forces with
the unofficialCon-
gressionalOld-Timer'sClub in a drive to undercutthe bill."89
not the Omaha correspondentwas correct, the Whetheror
federal Department of
Justice may force the hand of Congress,and revision of
the lobbying law
may be seriously undertaken.90
Unlike the originaltitle, all proposedamendmentsshould
be subjected
to carefulscrutinyby committeemembers,following
full publichearings.9l
The value of carefully planned hearings cannot be
this point, ProfessorJoseph P. Chamberlainof over-estimated. On
ColumbiaUniversity told
the Joint Committee on the Organizationof Congress:
"I think, in my experience,it is enormouslyimportant
lationto have carefulcommitteeconsideration.I have in orderto get goodlegis-
drafteda good many bills in
my time for privateorganizations,for state departments
neverfelt any satisfactionabout any measureto which I and bureaus,and I have
dealof time and considerationunlessit had had a careful might have given a great
tee and I knew that the commonsenee of that hearingbeforea commit-
thatbill."92 committeehad been expendedon

Methods employed to influence legislation are no longer

largelyto "buttonholing"membersof Congress in the restricted
orat home. Mass channels of communicationand the nation's Capitol
art of public rela-
tionshave increasedthe pressuresupon Congressand
agencies,and thus have drastically changed modernpressuregovernment
Itis recommendedthat: techniques.
1. The Lobbying title of the Legislative
ReorganizationAct be com-
pletelyredrafted and its various sections considered as
an integrated
whole,in orderto avoid contradictionsand ambiguities.
89 OmahaWorld-Herald, Oct. 9,1946.
90 See footnote53 above. The Justice Departmentholds
palpurpose"in section 307 means any purpose that the phrase"princi-
which is
activitiesof the "person"in question, that any other not incidental to the
meaningless interpretationwould be
and would clearly defeat the expressedintention of
testimony of Irving R. Eaufman beforethe Senate Committeeon Congress.See
theExecutiveDepartments,Feb. 17, 1948.See footnotes Expendituresin
81 The SenateCommitteeon
53 and 83 above.
Expendituresin the Executive
ready held such hearings,in which the writerparticipatedon Departmentshas al-
York Times,Feb. 18, 1948. Feb. 17, 1948. New
92 Eearings beforethe Joint
Committeeon the Organizationof Congress,79th
Cong., 1st Sess., Part 4, p. 1007.
2. The words principally and principal now appearing
in section 307
be deleted, and the lobbying act be made applicableto
all organizations
that now expend a specific sum (for example, at least
$1,000 for any one
quarterof the year) in influencingpublic opinionor the
agenciesof govern-
ment, directly or indirectly, in the passage or defeat of any
the Congressof the United States. While it cannot be
denied that organi-
zations such as labor, chambers of commerce, trade
associations, farm
groups,etc., do performmajor services not directlyrelated to
legislation,such legislative activity as they do engage in, even
for limited
periods,may be of vital importanceto the existenceof these
It is difficult, even at times impossible, to separate organizations.
the so-called non-
legislativefrom the legislative expenses of any organization.93
the act should requirea statement of the total budget of Therefore,
these organiza-
tions, broken down into broad categories of expenditures
with a listing
specificallyof all items of expenditurelabelled legislative.The names and
addressesof contributorsof $500 or more in any one quarter
should ap-
pearin the statements filed underthe Lobbyingtitle,
earmarkedfor legislative purposesor not.
3. A statement of the bona fide total membership
of organizations
shouldbe required.It would also be effective if each
requiredto state how its legislative policy is determinedand
to indicate
the responsibilityof the lobbyist in conveying these
views on behalf of
themembershipof the organization.It would then be a
simple matter to
expectchairmenof standing and special committees to
require of a wit-
nessappearingat hearingsa sworn statement as to
whom he represents,
themembershipof his organization,and the internal
structure of such
organization,indicating how the position taken by the witness
rivedat. This might prove a great step in the directionof was ar-
groupsmorerepresentativeof their actual and potential
moredemocraticin their procedures.
4. It should be the responsibility of a specially
designated agency to
enforcethe lobbying act. This agent should be the
theUnited States. It would be his responsibility toAttorney-Generalof
see that complete
93 For example, the
chairmanof the National Legislative Committee
American Federationof Labor,in orderto supporthis statement "that the of the
tiveexpensesof ourorganizationis a very minuteproportionof its legisla-
tothe annualreportof the Federationfor the year ending activities," points
the August31, 1946,in which
total expendituresof the Federationweregiven at morethan
liondollarsand legislativesalariesand expensesamountedto two and a half mil-
W. C. Husking,Dec. 6, 1946,and Reportof the Executive $16,441.57.Cf. letter
canFederationof Labor,1946,pp. 2-3. For the year endingAug. 31, of the Ameri-
thetotal expendituresof the Federationexceeded five million 1947,although
and expenseswere $22,474.00.These figuresdo dollars, legislative
the Federation'scampaignto defeat the Taft-Hartleynot
in includethe sums spent
270 Rv1SW

informationis supplied in accordancewith the terms of the act

and that
such information is given the fullest publicity.
Publicity is the key to
effective enforcement of lobbying legislation. The
compilation of the
data for the Congressional Recordis only a first step. The clerk of the
House and the secretary of the Senate, now responsible
for the compila-
tion of the data on Forms B and C, lack police power.
The informationon
11 forms, to be preparedby the Attorney-Generalin the first
be publishedat quarterlyintervals in the
Congressional Record.One copy
should be filed with the enforcementagency and one with
the clerk of the
House. It is further recommendedthat the compilation
of the data be
furnishedeither bx the enforcementagency or by the clerk
of the House
to the Press, Radio, and PeriodicalPress Galleriesat
stated intervals, in
sufficientnumber to permit distribution to each accredited
the Galleries.94Copies of the compiledlobbying data member of
should also be sent
at weekly intervals while Congressis in session to the
eachhouse in sufficientnumberto permit distributionto
each memberof
Furthermore,the Attorney-Generalshould be specifically
evaluatein his annualreportto Congressthe workingof the
duringthe past year, to interpret the informationyielded
under the act,
andto suggest improvementsthroughadministrativeor
It wouldbe highly advisablefor the appropriate legislative action.
annuallyto evaluate the act, as providedin the Legislative
tionAct. Reorganiza-
5. The act should be revised to require the filing of
statements and
regsstrationof "persons"who exert influence upon any
federal bureau,
agency,or governmentofficial.The Congresshaving taken
the first step
inrequiring registration of personsexerting
influence upon the legisla-
tivebody, the extension of its provisionsto the
wouldbe a simple matter. It would be furtherrecognition
of the fact that
thepressureupon the administrativedivision is
6. The act should specificallyprohibit the
employment of any person
topromoteor opposelegislationwhen compensationis
orin part upon the passageor defeat of legislative contingentin whole
94 For membership of the Press, Radio, and Periodical
Press Galleries, see Con-
Directory,Jan., 1948, pp. 731-783.
95 Senate bill 2512, 74th Cong.,
introduced by Senator Black, made such provi-
96 This prohibition is found in
many of the state lobbying laws. Contingent pay-
mentsmay tend to encourage questionable practices. A
registrant, in answering ques-
tion4 on Form B, "how much he is paid and is to
receive," stated: "$10,000 per an-
num as a retainer as Washington counsel on all matters
affecting the economic and
legalwelfare of the [fur] industry, plus a fee of $15,000 in the
cut from twenty per cent to ten per cent, plus an event excise tax on furs
additional fee of $25,000 in the

7. The exemption granted in section 308 to newspapersor other regu-

larly publishedperiodicaleshould be extended to radio.
8. The contradictionsin sections 307 and 311, as affecting the Corrupt
PracticesAct, shouldbe resolved,makingit clearthat only duly organized
state and local party committees are exemptedfrom the provisionsof the
lobbying act and that others may be requiredto file under the lobbying
and corruptpracticeslaws, dependingon their activities.
If the foregoing suggestions were adopted, many organizationsnow
enjoying tax exemptionstatus under the Federal Internal Revenue Code
might lose this status if they complied with the lobbying statute so
amended.This is undoubtedlyone of the chief reasonswhy many organi-
zations have not filed under the ambiguousterms of the present law. It
wouldseem, then, that Congressmight be requiredto amend the Internal
Revenue Code if it wished these organizationsto continue as tax exempt
No one doubts that it is a nuisanceto requiresuch full informationfrom
private organizations.Yet the time is opportuneto insist upon it. These
groups have grown accustomed in the past two decades to furnishing
more and more informationto the government.Teeth should be put into
the Lobbyingtitle at the earliest practicablemoment. It is far better for
Congressto clarify its position than for the courts to do so. Groupsen-
gaged in the legitimate activity of helping the people's representatives
formulate public policy are in a sense clothed with a public interest. A
democracyis entitled to the fullest informationfrom all the sources that
constituteits functioningparts -andwho woulddeny that pressuregroups
play a valuableand indispensablepart in the dynamicsof government?
However, regulatory legislation by itself, no matter how carefully
drawn or vigorously enforced, will not eliminate the predatorylobby or
discouragethe use of questionable or illegitimate practices by pressure
groups. Significantly,the Lobbying title is part of the Legislative Re-
organizationAct which aimed to improveand modernizethe organization
and operationsof the Congress.For example, by placing greater profes-
sional expert and clerical assistance at the disposal of legislative com-
mittees and members, Congress has made itself less dependent on un-
officialsourees of informationthan ever before. Strengtheningthe ability
of governmentto formulate legislative policy will go a long way toward
providingeffective regulation of pressuregroups.

event the entire excisetax on furs is repealedon or beforeJuly 1, 1948."Cf. Con.

Rec., Vol. 94, Jan. 29, 1948,p. 741.
97 See U. S. Code,title 26, sec. 101(6), 1938.