[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 2, Chapters 7 - 9]
[Chapter 8. Elections and Election Campaigns]
[C. Campaign Practices]
[§ 14. Investigations by Select Committees]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 936-945]
CHAPTER 8
Elections and Election Campaigns
C. CAMPAIGN PRACTICES
Sec. 14. Investigations by Select Committees
In recent Congresses (until the 93d Congress), a select committee
to investigate campaign expenditures had been created by one Congress
to study and review certain pending matters and to forward its findings
to the next Congress for appropriate action and use.(16)
Such findings have been used by the Committee on House Administration
in judging and investigating election contests and the validity of
certain elections.(17) In the 93d Congress, the House
granted the Committee on House Administration subpena power to conduct
investigations into election contests and practices, thereby enabling
the committee to assume the functions and duties of the select
committee,(18) and effective Jan. 3, 1975, the Committee on
House Administration as well as all other standing committees was given
subpena power, under Rule XI, clause 2(m), whether or not the House is
in session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. Sec. 14.1-14.3, infra, for creation and funding of such
select committees.
Select committees, their creation, powers and procedures,
see Ch. 17, infra.
Investigations and inquiries generally, see Ch. 15, infra.
17. See Sec. Sec. 14.4 et seq., infra. For a discussion of the
jurisdictional overlap between the select committee and the
Committee on House Administration, see Sec. 14.6, infra.
18. See H. Res. 737, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The former Select Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
hadauthority to investigate improper conduct by Members, including
campaign activities.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 14.9, infra.
The Senate Select Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct recommended the censure of a Senator, who was then
censured by the Senate, for improper use and conversion of
campaign funds, in the 90th Congress (see Sec. 12.3, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate has established select committees to investigate
improper campaign activities.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 20. See Sec. Sec. 14.10-14.12,
infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creation of Select Committee to Investigate Campaign Expenditures
Sec. 14.1 In the 91st Congress, the House agreed to a privileged
resolution, reported by the Committee on Rules, estab
[[Page 937]]
lishing a select committee to investigate and report on campaign
expenditures and practices by candidates for the House.
On Aug. 4, 1970,(1) Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of
Massachusetts, called up and the House adopted the following
resolution, reported as privileged by the Committee on Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 116 Cong. Rec. 27125, 27126, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. As indicated by
the note to Sec. 10.10, supra, the creation of such a select
committee is no longer necessary.
For similar select committees created by resolution, see H.
Res. 929, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 11, 1966, and H. Res. 1239,
90th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 1, 1968.
See also H. Res. 131, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 15, 1973,
continuing and funding a special committee on campaign
expenditures. The resolution extended the special committee
created in the 92d Congress, in order to enable it to assist
the Clerk in investigating new allegations of violations of
federal election laws.
H. Res. 279, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., authorized joint
investigations by the select committee and the Clerk, so that
the subpena power of the committee could be used by the Clerk
in carrying out his functions under the Federal Elections
Campaign Act of 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 1062
Resolved, That a special committee of five Members be appointed
by the Speaker of the House of Representatives to investigate and
report to the House not later than January 11, 1971, with respect
to the following matters:
(1) The extent and nature of expenditures made by all
candidates for the House of Representatives in connection with
their campaign for nomination and election to such office.
(2) The amount subscribed, contributed, or expended, and the
value of services rendered, and facilities made available
(including personal services, use of advertising space, radio and
television time, office space, moving picture films, and automobile
and any other transportation facilities) by any individual,
individuals, or group of individuals, committee, partnership,
corporation, or labor union, to or on behalf of each such candidate
in connection with any such campaign or for the purpose of
influencing the votes cast or to be cast at any convention or
election held in 1970 to which a candidate for the House of
Representatives is to be nominated or elected.
(3) The use of any other means or influence (including the
promise or use of patronage) for the purpose of aiding or
influencing the nomination or election of any such candidates.
(4) The amounts, if any, raised, contributed, and expended by
any individual, individuals, or group of individuals, committee,
partnership, corporation, or labor union, including any political
committee thereof, in connection with any such election, and the
amounts received by any political committee from any corporation,
labor union, individual, individuals, or group of individuals,
committee, or partnership.
[[Page 938]]
(5) The violations, if any, of the following statutes of the
United States:
(a) The Federal Corrupt Practices Act.
(b) The Act of August 2, 1939, as amended, relating to
pernicious political activities, commonly referred to as the Hatch
Act.
(c) The provisions of section 304, chapter 120, Public Law 101,
Eightieth Congress, first session, referred to as the Labor-
Management Relations Act, 1947.
(d) Any statute or legislative Act of the United States or of
the State within which a candidate is seeking nomination or
reelection to the House of Representatives, the violation of which
Federal or State statute, or statutes, would affect the
qualification of a Member of the House of Representatives within
the meaning of article I, section 5, of the Constitution of the
United States.
(6) Such other matters relating to the election of Members of
the House of Representatives in 1970, and the campaigns of
candidates in connection therewith, as the committee deems to be of
public interest, and which, in its opinion, will aid the House of
Representatives in enacting remedial legislation, or in deciding
contests that may be instituted involving the right to a seat in
the House of Representatives.
(7) The committee is authorized to act upon its own motion and
upon such information as in its judgment may be reasonable or
reliable. Upon complaint being made to the committee under oath, by
any person, candidate or political committee, setting forth
allegations as to facts which, under this resolution, it would be
the duty of said committee to investigate, the committee shall
investigate such charges as fully as though it were acting upon its
own motion, unless, after a hearing upon such complaint, the
committee shall find that the allegations in such complaint are
immaterial or untrue. All hearings before the committee, and before
any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, shall be public, and all
orders and decisions of the committee, and of any such
subcommittee, shall be public.
For the purpose of this resolution, the committee or any duly
authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized to hold such public
hearings, to sit and act at such times and places during the
sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of the Ninety-first
Congress, to employ such attorneys, experts, clerical, and other
assistants, to require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of
such witnesses and the production of such correspondence, books,
papers, and documents, to administer such oaths, and to take such
testimony as it deems advisable. Subpenas may be issued under the
signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or
by any member designated by such chairman, and may be served by any
person designated by any such chairman or member.
(8) The committee is authorized and directed to report promptly
any and all violations of any Federal or State statutes in
connection with the matters and things mentioned herein to the
Attorney General of the United States in order that he may take
such official action as may be proper.
(9) Every person who, having been summoned as a witness by
authority of said committee or any subcommittee
[[Page 939]]
thereof, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses
to answer any question pertinent to the investigation heretofore
authorized, shall be held to the penalties prescribed by law.
That said committee is authorized and directed to file interim
reports whenever in the judgment of the majority of the committee,
or of the subcommittee conducting portions of said investigation,
the public interest will be best served by the filing of said
interim reports, and in no event shall the final report of said
committee be filed later than January 11, 1971, as hereinabove
provided.
Sec. 14.2 A resolution creating a special committee to investigate and
report on campaign expenditures of all Members is called up as
privileged.
On Aug. 10, 1966, there was reported by the Committee on Rules
House Resolution 929, authorizing the Speaker to appoint a special
committee to investigate and report on campaign expenditures of
candidates for the House of Representatives. The resolution was called
up as privileged on Aug. 11 and agreed to by the House.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 112 Cong. Rec. 18775, 19080, 19081, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, on Aug. 1, 1968,(3) the Committee on Rules
offered House Resolution 1239 authorizing the Speaker to appoint a
special committee to investigate and report on campaign expenditures of
candidates for the House. The resolution was called up as privileged
and was agreed to. On Aug. 2, 1968, Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, appointed members to the special committee pursuant to
the resolution.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 114 Cong. Rec. 24770, 24771, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
4. 114 Cong. Rec. 25064, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
The Committee on Rules reports as privileged a report on a
resolution creating a select committee. See, for example, 108
Cong. Rec. 16000, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 9, 1962. Generally,
see Ch. 17. infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.3 Funds for a special committee to investigate campaign
expenditures are authorized by House resolution and paid from the
contingent fund.
On Aug. 2, 1968,(5) the House passed a resolution
authorizing the payment of expenses for an investigation to be
conducted by the special committee to investigate campaign
expenditures, established by House Resolution 1239. The resolution
provided for payment from the contingent fund for staff members and for
other expenditures of the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 114 Cong. Rec. 25065, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the resolution was not reported from the Committee on
[[Page 940]]
House Administration, the resolution was not called up as privileged:
Mr. [Samuel N.] Friedel [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of House
Resolution 1281.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1281
Resolved, That the expenses of conducting the investigation
authorized by H. Res. 1239, Ninetieth Congress, incurred by the
Special Committee To Investigate Campaign Expenditures, 1968,
acting as a whole or by subcommittee, not to exceed $50,000,
including expenditures for employment of experts, special
counsel, and clerical, stenographic, and other assistants,
shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House on
vouchers authorized by said committee, signed by the chairman
of the committee, and approved by the Committee on House
Administration.
Sec. 2. The official stenographers to committees may be
used at all hearings held in the District of Columbia if not
otherwise engaged.
The Speaker: (6) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Maryland?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Use of Select Committee Findings to Judge Elections
Sec. 14.4 The findings of a special committee to investigate campaign
expenditures, established by the House in the preceding Congress,
may be transmitted to the Committee on House Administration and
used where applicable by parties to election
contests.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See H. Rept. No. 1599 and H. Res. 580 in the contested election
case of Macy v Greenwood, First Congressional District of New
York, reported Mar. 19, 1952. 98 Cong. Rec. 2545, 82d Cong. 2d
Sess.
For a resolution adopted in the 93d Congress granting the
Committee on House Administration subpena power in conducting
investigations, thereby enabling it to assume the functions of
the select committee, see H. Res. 737, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.5 A special committee to study campaign expenditures of the
Members in the preceding Congress has recommended that the
Committee on House Administration investigate and report to the
House by a certain date.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See H. Rept. No. 2482 and H. Res. 676 in the election contest of
Oliver v Hale, for the First Congressional District of Maine,
reported Aug. 6, 1958, 104 Cong. Rec. 16481, 85th Cong. 2d
Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.6 Where the Select Committee to Investigate Campaign
Expenditures of the
[[Page 941]]
89th Congress investigated the election of a Member-elect and
recommended that his right to his seat be reserved for decision, he
was sworn in, but his final right to a seat was referred to the
Committee on House Administration.
On Jan. 10, 1967,(9) the House passed a resolution
authorizing the administration of the oath to Member-elect Benjamin B.
Blackburn, of Georgia, but directing that his final right to a seat be
referred to the Committee on House Administration. The determination of
his right to a seat was reserved for later decision pursuant to the
recommendation of the Select Committee to Investigate Campaign
Expenditures appointed in the 89th Congress.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 113 Cong. Rec. 27, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. See H. Rept. No. 2348, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 3, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right of Mr. Blackburn to his seat was then treated as a
contested election case, and the Committee on House Administration
recommended that Mr. Blackburn be declared entitled to his seat after
the investigation.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 15848, 15849, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 14, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 11, 1967,(12) the House adopted House Resolution
542, reported by the committee, affirming the right of Mr. Blackburn to
his seat. The resolution was offered by Mr. Robert T. Ashmore, of South
Carolina. He discussed the basis for the investigation, including the
dispute concerning the accuracy of computers used to count the ballots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 18291, 18292, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Charles E. Goodell, of New York, remarked in debate on the
function of the Select Committee on Campaign Expenditures and the
conflict in jurisdiction between that committee and the Subcommittee on
Elections of the Committee on House Administration.
Mr. Goodell: Mr. Speaker, I also join in the committee decision
in this instance to dismiss the contest brought by Mr. Mackay
against the incumbent contestee, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Blackburn]. It should be emphasized that at this stage Mr. Mackay
has requested the withdrawal of his contest, so there is really no
issue left to argue about.
I think there is one point, however, that should be made in
this debate which affects all of us in the possibility of election
contests in our own districts in the future. We must move to
clarify the whole procedure of election contests in the interim
between the election date and the opening of a new Congress. In
that period the jurisdiction lies to a degree in the Special
Committee on Campaign Expenditures. As a practical matter, the
ultimate decision for investigating and deter
[[Page 942]]
mining election contests rests with the new Congress and with the
Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee on House Administration.
We have had in the past confusion in election contest cases. The
contester in some instances has felt he had complied with the law
by giving notice of contest to the Special Committee on Campaign
Expenditures and failed to give notice under the law to the Clerk
of the House and the Subcommittee on Elections of the Committee on
House Administration.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, it seems unnecessary that we have two
such subcommittees operating with overlapping jurisdiction.
We have moved to a degree to provide that the membership of the
Special Committee on Campaign Expenditures will be the same as the
membership of the House Subcommittee on Elections.
Perhaps this would be a solution. In any event I believe this
Congress should move to try to eliminate the overlapping and
confusion that exists in the present law between the jurisdictions
of these two committees. It caused some difficulty in this
instance. The Special Committee on Campaign Expenditures spent
considerable time debating its proper jurisdiction, and the special
committee ultimately, by a divided vote, recommended that the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Blackburn] not be seated on opening
day. There was considerable difference of opinion as to the proper
jurisdiction of the Elections Subcommittee as distinguished from
the Campaign Expenditures Special Committee in this situation.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we could move to eliminate any
possibility of this type of confusion in the future.
Sec. 14.7 Both candidates for a congressional seat filed petitions with
the special campaign expenditures committee of the preceding
Congress, which committee investigated only one petition filed
therewith.
On June 13, 1961,(13) the Committee on House
Administration reported on the Roush-Chambers election contest for the
Fifth Congressional District of Indiana. As indicated by the report (H.
Rept. No. 513) and by the debate in the House on House Resolution 339,
on June 14, 1961, declaring Mr. J. Edward Roush entitled to the seat,
both candidates had filed petitions with the special campaign
expenditures committee created in the 86th Congress. The dispute was
resolved in favor of Mr. Roush, although the committee had prepared
findings on and had investigated only one of the petitions filed
therewith.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 107 Cong. Rec. 10186, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. For debate on the resolution, see 107 Cong. Rec. 10377-91, 87th
Cong. 1st Sess. For minority views criticizing the action of
the special committee and the action of the Committee on House
Administration, see id. at p. 10381.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.8 The Committee on House Administration took
[[Page 943]]
``judicial notice'' of complaints filed with a special committee to
investigate campaign expenditures of the preceding Congress,
although the special committee had failed to make recommendations
thereon.
On Apr. 22, 1958,(15) the Committee on House
Administration reported on the contested election case of Carter v
LeCompte for the Fourth Congressional District of Iowa, and recommended
that the contestee be declared entitled to his seat. In its report,
House Report No. 1626, the committee took judicial notice of complaints
filed by the contestant with the special committee to investigate
campaign expenditures which had been created and appointed in the 84th
Congress. The special committee had not taken any action on those
complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 104 Cong. Rec. 6939, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 17, 1958, the House debated and adopted House Resolution
533 declaring the contestee entitled to the seat.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 104 Cong. Rec. 11512-17, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Select Committee on Standards and Conduct
Sec. 14.9 In the 89th Congress, the House established a Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct, with authority to investigate
allegations of improper conduct by Members.
On Oct. 19, 1966,(17) a resolution establishing a Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct, offered by the Committee on Rules,
was called up as privileged (H. Res. 1013). The function of the
proposed committee was to investigate allegations of improper conduct
by Members, to recommend disciplinary action to the House, and to
transmit recommendations as to any necessary legislation. The House
passed the resolution, as amended, on the same day.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 112 Cong. Rec. 27713-29, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. Expenditures by the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct were
authorized to be paid out of the contingent fund of the House.
112 Cong. Rec. 27730, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 19, 1966. The
Speaker [John W. McCormack (Mass.)] announced his appointments
to the select committee on Oct. 20, 1966, 112 Cong. Rec. 28112,
89th Cong. 2d Sess.
A standing Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, with
jurisdiction over campaign contributions, was established in
the 90th Congress (see Ch. 17, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Select Committee on Campaign Practices
Sec. 14.10 A special Senate committee established in the 71st
[[Page 944]]
Congress to investigate campaign practices and violations of the
Corrupt Practices Act held extensive hearings and proposed
legislation intended to remedy certain defects in the act.
On Apr. 10, 1930, the Senate passed Senate Resolution 215,
establishing a special committee to investigate the elections of 1930,
with respect to campaign expenditures, election primaries, election
contests, campaign practices, and alleged violations of the Federal
Corrupt Practices Act of 1925.
The committee conducted extensive hearings and submitted reports on
the effectiveness of the act (19) and on alleged violations
thereof.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. S. Rept. No. 20, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., submitted pursuant to S. Res.
215, printed in 75 Cong. Rec. 977-79, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec.
21, 1931.
20. S. Rept. No. 24, pursuant to S. Res. 403, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec.
21, 1931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 14.11 The Vice President was authorized to appoint a special
committee for an investigation of alleged attempts to improperly
influence the Senate through campaign contributions.
On Feb. 22, 1956,(1) the Senate adopted Senate
Resolution 219, authorizing an investigation by a special committee of
lobbying activities. (The Senate had previously authorized an
investigation into an alleged effort to influence a Senator, by
contributing to his campaign, in relation to the natural gas bill, S.
1853.) In his veto message on the gas bill, President Eisenhower stated
that accumulated evidence of questionable activities in relation to the
bill indicated a substantial threat to the integrity of the
governmental process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 102 Cong. Rec. 3116, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Resolution 219, as agreed to, provided in part:
Resolved, That there is hereby established a special committee
which is authorized and directed to investigate the subject of
attempts to influence improperly or illegally the Senate or any
Member thereof, or any candidate therefor, or any officer or
employee of the executive branch of the Government, through
campaign contributions, political activities, lobbying, or any and
all other activities or practices. . . .
. . . The special committee shall consist of 8 members to be
appointed by the Vice President. . . .
. . . The special committee shall report to the Senate by
January 31, 1957, and shall include in its report specific
recommendations (1) to improve and modernize the Federal election
laws; (2) to improve and strengthen the Federal Corrupt Practices
Act, the Hatch Act, and the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, and
related laws; and (3) to insure appropriate ad
[[Page 945]]
ministrative action in connection with all persons, organizations,
associations, or corporations believed to be guilty of wrongdoing
punishable by law.
Sec. 14.12 In the 84th Congress, the Senate by resolution created a
select committee to investigate an attempt by a campaign
contributor to influence the vote of a Senator.
On Feb. 7, 1956,(2) there was laid before the Senate a
resolution (S. Res. 205) establishing a select committee to investigate
allegedly improper attempts through political contributions to
influence the vote of a Senator. The Senate adopted the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 102 Cong. Rec. 2167, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That there is hereby established a select committee
to investigate the circumstances involving an alleged improper
attempt through political contributions to influence the vote of
the junior Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Case] in connection with
the Senate's consideration of the bill S. 1853, the natural gas
bill.
Parliamentarian's Note: During the consideration of S. 1853, the
gas bill, Senator Francis H. Case announced that an attempt had been
made to influence his vote on the measure by tendering him a campaign
contribution.