² The first Hatch Act, Public Law No. 252, 76th Congress, was approved August 2, 1939. The second, Public Law No. 753, approved July 19, 1940, was in the form of an amendment to the earlier act. The provisions of these two acts, together with the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, are published in convenient pamphlet form under the title “Political Activities and Federal Corrupt Practices Acts,” as Sen. Doc. No. 264, 76th Cong., 3d Sess.

³ According to Section 302(c) of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, a “political committee” is “any committee which accepts contributions or makes expenditures for the purpose of influencing the election of candidates … in two or more states….”

⁴ The venture netted the committee about $250,000.

⁵ See discussion in the writer's Money in Elections, pp. 308–12, 43–48.

⁶ Senate Resolutions 212, 291, and 336, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., and Senate Resolution 59, 77th Cong., 1st Sess.; appointed Feb. 1, 1940.

⁷ Note Senator Tobey's “minority views” and “supplemental reports,” and Senator Adams' statement.

⁸ United States Senate Special Committee to Investigate Presidential, Vice Presidential, and Senatorial Campaign Expenditures, 1940, Report No. 47 (77th Cong., 1st Sess., Feb. 15, 1941), pp. 79–80. Hereafter this will be cited as Gillette Committee, Report.

⁹ Gillette Committee, Report, pp. 8–9, 117–29, 143–48.

¹⁰ See “Campaign Funds in the Presidential Election of 1936,” in this Review, Vol. 31 (June, 1937), pp. 496–7.

¹¹ $336,000 of the $412,000 received between Jan. 1 and Feb. 28, 1940, was from Jackson Day dinners.

¹² Data from reports on file in the office of the clerk of the House.

¹³ United States Senate, Special Committee Investigating Campaign Expenditures, 1940, Hearings, Vol. II, pp. 197 ff. These hearings were not printed, but the writer had access to a mimeographed committee copy. They will be referred to hereafter as Gillette Committee, Hearings.

¹⁴ New York Times, August 11, 12, 13, 18, 1940.

¹⁵ Gillette Committee, Hearings, Vol. II, pp. 188 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Idem.

¹⁷ Gillette Committee, Hearings, p. 196.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Gillette Committee, Report, p. 9.

¹⁹ See the statement of Henry P. Fletcher, general counsel of the Republican National Committee, New York Times, August 4, 1940, and testimony of Goodspeed, C. B. and Root, Orren Jr., Gillette Committee, Hearings, Vol. II, pp. 34 ff. and 188 ff.Google Scholar

²⁰ Gillette Committee, Hearings, Vol. III, p. 315.Google Scholar

²¹ New York Times, Aug. 4, 1940, p. 1.

²² The total expenditure of the national committees in recent election years, including bills unpaid and advances to other committees, were as follows:

²³ Data from reports filed in the office of the clerk of the House.

^23a The writer is indebted to Mr. Goodspeed, treasurer of the Republican National Committee, for a copy of the committee's audit of the expenditures from June 29 to December 31, which makes it possible to present the following interesting analysis of the expenditures of that committee during the campaign proper:

²⁴ Figures for New Jersey and Pennsylvania and transfers from finance committees to Republican National Committee from reports filed in the office of the clerk of the House; other data from the Gillette Committee, Report, pp. 117–29.

²⁵ For a description of the activities of these organizations, see the writer's Money in Elections, pp. 165–8.

²⁶ See “Campaign Funds in the Presidential Election of 1936,” op. cit.

²⁷ Figures from the Gillette Committee, Report, pp. 106–29.

²⁸ Gillette Committee, Hearings, Vol. II, pp. 166 ff.Google Scholar

³⁰ See Mr. Quayle's statements to the press after the passage of the Hatch Act (New York Times, Sept. 12, 1940) and his testimony before the Gillette Committee (Hearings, Vol. II, pp. 197 ff.).Google Scholar Similar statements were made to this writer by Mr. Quayle and other members of his staff early in October. The atmosphere of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at that time was one of optimism, and the opinion generally expressed was that the election would be carried without a large expenditure of money.

³¹ Gillette Committee, Report, pp. 10–11. See also the testimony of Mr.Quayle, , Mr.Reynolds, , and Quinn, Charles D., secretary of the New Jersey Democratic Central Committee, Gillette Committee, Hearings, Vol. VI, pp. 552–80Google Scholar; Vol. VIII, pp. 687–709; Vol. IX, pp. 752–3; and statement of Senator Tobey, Gillette Committee, Report, pp. 81–88, urging the committee to seek to determine whether these transactions constituted a conspiracy to violate the Hatch Act, and to recommend prosecutions to the Department of Justice.

³² See Gillette Committee, Report, p. 124.

³⁴ See Gillette Committee, Report, pp. 106–29. Some of these are listed in Appendix IV, some in Appendix V. The classification is not altogether logical, apparently being based upon whether the organization filed a report with the clerk of the House or with a state or local officer.

³⁵ According to the testimony of Samuel B. Pettengill, chairman of the National Committee to Uphold Constitutional Government, it was organized in 1937 to oppose the Supreme Court reorganization plan. The leading spirit was Frank Gannett of Rochester. Later, the organization opposed the reorganization of the administrative branch of the government, the Roosevelt “purge” in the 1938 primaries, the Wagner Act, “socialization of medicine,” and the third term. In 1940, it claimed that it was not engaged in a campaign for the election of a particular candidate, and hence was not a “political committee” within the definition of the Corrupt Practices Act, but conceded that its anti-third-term activities aided Willkie. Gillette Committee, Hearings, Vol. III, pp. 222–56.Google Scholar

³⁶ In many communities there was literally house-to-house canvassing for funds.

³⁷ Report, pp. 10 and 11.

³⁸ Except for the national committees, these figures are taken from the Gillette Committee, Report, pp. 10–11, and tables, pp. 106–42. Unquestionably other transfers of funds should be subtracted from both lists, but it is impossible to trace these with accuracy.

³⁹ See the writer's “Campaign Funds in a Depression Year,” in this Review, Vol. 27 (Oct., 1933), p. 770; and “Campaign Funds in the Presidential Election of 1936,” op. cit.

⁴⁰ See Money in Elections, p. 75. The figures are from the report of the Steiwer Committee. The Democratic total was $7,152,000; the Republican, $9,433,000.

⁴¹ The figures are as follows:

⁴² Data from the reports filed in the office of the clerk of the House.

⁴³ In 1936, labor contributed 5.1 per cent of the funds of the Democratic National Committee.

⁴⁴ See Table IV above. Labor's Non-Partisan League was inactive in 1940; it raised no funds and spent only $2,000.

⁴⁵ This table includes cash contributions only. In the case of the Democrats, it does not include those who contributed by attending Jackson Day Dinners. Collections made by clubs or committees are listed as “Impossible to allocate.” The number of contributions credited to “Labor” are those of groups rather than individuals, and each represented the gift of a large number of trade union members. The figure for the total number of Republican contributors represents the receipts issued during the calendar year 1940. The writer is indebted to Mrs. Mary C. Salisbury, comptroller of the Democratic National Committee, for the number of contributors to that organization.

⁴⁶ The percentages are as follows: 1928, 12.5; 1932, 16.0; 1936, 18.5.

⁴⁷ The Republican figures are: 1928, 8.2; 1932, 9.1; 1936, 13.5.

⁴⁸ In 1936, contributions of $1,000 to $4,999 represented 19.4 per cent of the total Democratic funds; contributions of $100 to $999 represented 18.0 per cent. The Republican figures for 1936 are as follows: $1,000 to $4,999, 26.8 per cent; $100 to $999, 23.9 per cent.

⁴⁹ There were 56 contributions of $4,000.

⁵⁰ The 1936 figures are: Democratic, 54,818; Republican, 84,770.

⁵¹ Reports from 33 of the states which held dinners in 1940 indicate that they were attended by 18,159 persons. The writer is indebted to Mrs. Mary S. Salisbury, comptroller of the Democratic National Committee, for this information.

⁵² The reports which this committee filed in the office of the clerk are spread through 37 fat volumes.

⁵³ The Gillette Committee, Report, pp. 143–7, lists the contributions of other “prominent” families to various pro-Willkie organizations.

⁵⁴ From the reports filed with the clerk of the House.

⁵⁵ Except for contributions to the National Committee, data are from Gillette Committee, Report, pp. 143–7.

⁵⁶ From the Gillette Committee, Report, pp. 143–7.

⁵⁷ Gillette Committee, Report, p. 148.

⁵⁸ Only 3.3 per cent of the contributions of $1,000 or more came from this group in 1936, compared to 25.3 per cent in 1928 and 24.2 per cent in 1932.

⁵⁹ In identifying the interests of contributors, Who's Who in America, Poor's Register of Directors of Corporations, and the directories and telephone books of various cities were used. Under “Organized Labor” are included all contributions from trade unions, regardless of amount. Speaking strictly, none of these is a contribution of “$1,000 or more,” since each includes many individual contributions.

⁶⁰ Letter from Mr. Goodspeed, dated Apr. 8, 1941, in reply to a specific query from the writer.

⁶¹ Report, p. 80.

⁶² Mimeographed report dated Feb. 26, 1941.

⁶³ Ibid., p. 11.

⁶⁴ See Table V above.

⁶⁵ Report, p. 80.

⁶⁶ Mimeographed report, p. 5.

⁶⁷ Ibid., p. 8.

⁶⁸ Ibid., p. 9.

⁶⁹ Money in Eledions, pp. 374–404.