[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 2, Chapters 7 - 9]
[Chapter 8. Elections and Election Campaigns]
[C. Campaign Practices]
[§ 11. Campaign Practices and Contested Elections]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 919-924]
CHAPTER 8
Elections and Election Campaigns
C. CAMPAIGN PRACTICES
Sec. 11. Campaign Practices and Contested Elections
[Note: For specific election contests, see chapter 9, infra.]
In judging contested elections, the Committee on House
Administration or its subcommittee on elections, and then the House,
take into account alleged violations of federal or state election
campaign laws and the effect of such violations on the outcome of the
election. Such statutes are not binding on the House in exercising its
function of judging the elections of its Members, since the
Constitution gives the House the sole power to so judge.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 47-50 (comments to U.S. Const.
art. I, Sec. 5, clause 1) (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 920]]
The House generally does not unseat a Member for alleged campaign
irregularities if he possesses a proper certificate of election and
where it has been found in an election contest that any violations of
the applicable statute were unintentional and not
fraudulent.(10) Thus, failure to file timely and accurate
expenditure reports with the Clerk of the House does not necessarily
deprive a contestee of his seat, and the Committee on House
Administration will consider evidence of mitigating circumstances and
of negligence as opposed to fraud.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 11.1, infra.
11. See Sec. 11.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House has generally considered the election contest as the
proper procedure by which a losing candidate can challenge the election
of the nominee for alleged campaign improprieties.(12)
However, violations of the Corrupt Practices Act could also be
litigated in civil court proceedings in a proper case.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Ch. 9, infra. See Sec. 12, infra, for expulsion, exclusion and
censure in relation to campaign practices.
Congressional committees have investigated allegations of
improper orillegal campaign activities (see Sec. Sec. 13, 14,
infra).
13. See Pub. L. No. 92-225, Sec. 308(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In presenting an election contest based on campaign irregularities
before a House committee, the contestant has the burden of proof to
establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that (1) the
contestee had violated a state or federal campaign practices statute,
and (2) that any such alleged violations directly or indirectly
prevented the contestant from receiving a majority of the votes
cast.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Rept. No. 1783, to accompany H. Res. 427, reported Mar. 14,
1940, 86 Cong. Rec. 2915, 2916, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., in the
Scott v Eaton contest for the 18th Congressional District of
California. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Negligence in Reporting Campaign Expenditures
Sec. 11.1 An elections committee has found that negligence on the part
of a candidate in preparing expenditure accounts to be filed with
the Clerk should not deprive him of his seat in the House, absent
fraud, where he received a substantial majority of the votes cast.
For example, on Jan. 31, 1944,(15) an elections
committee
[[Page 921]]
reported (H. Rept. No. 1032) in the contested election case of Thill v
McMurray, for the Fifth Congressional District of Wisconsin. The
committee recommended that the contestee be declared entitled to the
seat despite irregularities in reporting expenditures to the Clerk. The
committee found that the contestee had received a substantial majority
of the votes for his seat and should not be deprived of his seat for
negligent and not fraudulent preparation of expenditure accounts by
himself and his attorney. The committee did admonish the contestee in
its report for signing under oath an expenditure statement without
being familiar with its contents and irregularities.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 90 Cong. Rec. 962, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 90 Cong. Rec. 3252,
3253, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 29, 1944, where the Committee
on Elections No. 1 recommended that an election contest be
dismissed where the contestee had failed to correctly file
reports under the Corrupt Practices Act, but where such
reporting was merely negligent and not purposeful. The House
adopted H. Res. 490, dismissing the contest.
16. See also the report of an elections committee in the case of
Schafer v Wasielewski, Fourth Congressional District of
Wisconsin, where expenditure accounts were negligently
prepared. The report stated that the ``committee does not
condone such negligence.'' 90 Cong. Rec. 3252, 3253, 78th Cong.
2d Sess., Mar. 29, 1944 (report printed in the Record).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House agreed without debate to a resolution (H. Res. 426)
dismissing the contest.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 90 Cong. Rec. 933, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 31, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Campaign Literature
Sec. 11.2 A pre-election irregularity, such as unauthorized
distribution of campaign literature, will not be attributed to a
particular candidate where he did not participate therein.
On Sept. 8, 1959,(18) the House agreed to House
Resolution 380, reported by the Committee on House Administration and
called up by Mr. Robert T. Ashmore, of South Carolina; the resolution
declared Mr. T. Dale Alford entitled to a seat from the Fifth
Congressional District of Arkansas following an investigation by the
committee (H. Rept. No. 1172). The committee found that although
campaign literature had been improperly distributed during the
election, such distribution was not authorized by or participated in by
Mr. Alford.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 105 Cong. Rec. 18610, 18611, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. For a description of the pre-election irregularities investigated
by the Committee on House Administration, pursuant to the
recommendation of the Select Committee on Campaign Expenditures
of the 85th Congress, see the remarks of Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill,
Jr. (Mass.) at 105 Cong. Rec. 3432-34, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.,
Mar. 5, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 922]]
Sec. 11.3 An elections committee found no evidence that contestee
financed extra editions of a magazine which supported his
candidacy.
On Mar. 19, 1952,(20) an elections committee reported
(H. Rept. No. 1599) in the contested election case of Macy v Greenwood
for the First Congressional District of New York. The committee found
no evidence that the contestee financed extra editions of a magazine
which had supported his candidacy, and recommended that the contestee
be declared entitled to the seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 98 Cong. Rec. 2545, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House adopted House Resolution 580 declaring the contestee
entitled to his seat.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 98 Cong. Rec. 2517, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expenditures by Political Committees and Volunteers
Sec. 11.4 An elections committee may consider evidence to determine
whether certain expenditures were made by a ``voluntary'' committee
or ``personal'' campaign committee, as defined by state law.
On Mar. 29, 1944,(2) the House agreed to House
Resolution 490, dismissing the contested election case of Schafer v
Wasielewski for the Fourth Congressional District of Wisconsin,
pursuant to the report of the Committee on Elections No. 1. The report
recommended such dismissal on the ground that although the contestee's
expense reports disclosed expenditures in excess of amounts permitted
by law, certain of those expenses were not campaign expenses
attributable to the candidate himself under Wisconsin state law. The
report, which was printed in the Record, stated in part as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 90 Cong. Rec. 3252, 3253, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisconsin statutes limit to $875 the amount of money that
can be spent by a candidate for Congress in the general election.
The Wisconsin statutes, however, place no limitation upon receipts
and expenditures of individuals or groups that might voluntarily
interest themselves in behalf of a candidate.
Thaddeus F. Wasielewski filed with the Clerk of the House of
Representatives on November 5, 1942, a statement, as required by
Federal law, showing receipts of $1,689 and total expenditures of
$1,172.
On December 17, 1942, contestant filed notice of contest of the
election of Thaddeus F. Wasielewski in which he pointed out that
the sum set forth in the statement filed by Thaddeus F. Wasielewski
with the Clerk of the House of Representatives was in excess of
expenditures permitted under Wisconsin law and the Federal Corrupt
Practices Act, and that Thaddeus F.
[[Page 923]]
Wasielewski was, therefore, in violation of the statutes of the
State of Wisconsin and of the Federal statutes.
On its face, the statement of receipts and expenditures filed
by contestee with the Clerk of the House of Representatives
violates the laws of Wisconsin and the Federal Corrupt Practices
Act. The direct evidence, however, indicates that the contributions
listed were paid to the Wasielewski for Congress Club and the
expenditures made by that organization, which was shown to be a
voluntary committee rather than a personal campaign committee as
defined by the laws of Wisconsin. . . .
Under all the circumstances, the committee is of the opinion
that Mr. Wasielewski, who received a substantial plurality of
votes, approximately 17,000, in the general election of November 3,
1942, over Mr. Schafer, his nearest opponent, should not be denied
his seat in the House of Representatives on account of the errors
made in the statement filed by Mr. Wasielewski with the Clerk of
the House of Representatives.
Effect of Mitigating Circumstances
Sec. 11.5 Mitigating circumstances may be taken into account by a
committee on elections in determining whether to recommend to the
House that a seated Member or Delegate be unseated for failure to
comply with the Corrupt Practices Act which requires filing with
the Clerk complete and itemized accounts of expenditures.
On May 21, 1936,(3) the Committee on Elections
recommended in its report (H. Rept. No. 2736) on the contested election
case of McCandless v King (for the seat of Delegate from Hawaii) that
the contestee, Samuel Wilder King, be declared entitled to the seat,
notwithstanding a failure to file accounts of expenditures as required
by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 80 Cong. Rec. 7765, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee stated in its report that it had found certain
mitigating circumstances to be present in the case. The report stated
that such circumstances could include evidence of personal character,
lack of experience as a candidate for public office, and the nature of
the expenditures.
The committee also found that although the contestee had failed to
comply with the Corrupt Practices Act, which required reporting within
30 days of the election to the Clerk of the House a complete and
itemized account of expenditures, there were circumstances in
mitigation of such failure.
The committee found that the contestee had, within the 30 days,
communicated certain itemized
[[Page 924]]
expenditures to the Clerk and indicated his intention once in
Washington to complete and file the required forms.
On June 2, 1936, the House declared the contestee entitled to his
seat.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 80 Cong. Rec. 8705, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. (H. Res. 521).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------