Sold – Harry Truman Signs On to Advocacy of Election Reform

William M. Boyle, Jr. was Chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1949-1951. During the last year of his tenure, he was scheduled to testify before the U.S. Senate Committee on Elections. He intended to make six concrete proposals and drafted a five page statement to be read to the committee.

However, before finalizing it, Boyle submitted the proposals and statement to the White House for President Truman’s comments. The results indicate that Truman broadly concurred with Boyle as he tackled such still-debated issues as limitations on and disclosure of political contributions, federal funding of elections and voter registration. An attached sheet contains a note addressed “Memo to Mr. Boyle,” saying “I’m returning your recommendations to the Senate Committee on Elections with some minor suggestions. H.S.T.”

The six proposals Boyle made with Truman’s agreement were listed on page one: “1. It is recommended that Congress study ways to make registration and voting easier and more simple..; 2. Congress to consider appropriating funds to be distributed by the parties to Congressional and Senatorial candidates in 1952; 3. Set a limit on total contributions which one individual can make for political purposes in one calendar year; 4. Require individuals who contribute more than a specified amount…to report their contributions; 5…Congress authorize the printing of party platforms…; and 6. It is suggested that Congress make a ‘public study’ of the problem presented by deliberately biased news coverage of political campaigns…I, of course, do not advocate any type of censorship of political news, but I would hope that a Congressional study…might encourage the appropriate professional societies to adopt voluntary public standards by which the public can judge such activities.” Truman had no comments on that page, but at bottom wrote, “I’ve made some marks on the attached. Use them if you like. They are only for clarification. H.S.T.” All of Truman’s notations except the memo are in pencil.

Boyle’s statement starts by expressing his gratitude for the opportunity to discuss “the steps which can be taken to strengthen our Federal election laws and to prevent the type of corruption of the elective process which members of both parties agree has occurred in recent elections.” He continues by suggesting that the “ultimate purpose of insuring fair, honest and truly representative elections will never be achieved…until all of the eligible electorate vote.” Truman has changed these last two words to read more actively – “voters go to the polls and vote.” Boyle then asks for a study to consider ways to increase voter registration, claiming that “the failure of a large part of the eligible voters to go to the polls is a serious problem…which all of us know weakens our government and our way of life.” The next issue is ceilings on campaign expenditures and contributions. The law places an unrealistically low ceiling on expenditures, so “spending limits should be revised to conform to the present costs of conducting campaigns.” But there must still be a ceiling as “We cannot take the risk that our elections will go to the man who has the greatest appeal to the wealthiest contributors.” In the era of McCarthyism, Boyle wrote, “…this new technique of the big lie or the big doubt when used to attack the loyalty and patriotism of decent citizens and faithful public servants is not in the American tradition.” Truman crossed out the words “the big lie or the big doubt,” somewhat softening the phrase to read “…this new technique which is used to attack the loyalty and patriotism…” However, he passed along the statement “It is an imported technique which has already begun to poison our political system. It must be stamped out.” Boyle then proceeded to discuss his six suggestions, with a strong advocacy of a committee to make a careful study of the new methods of campaign financing, including federal funding, which would hopefully “enable candidates without the prospect of large contributions to have a fighting chance…” Truman added “radio” to a contiguous discussion of the “rising costs of campaign materials and the cost of the new medium of television.” Boyle wanted to require educational television stations to allot candidates for federal office free time to express their views, with Truman clarifying this to read “all candidates.” The statement makes the controversial and unavailing proposal that Congress “establish standards by which a candidate is made responsible for the type of campaign waged on his behalf by his agents and officials of his party…It should be provided that violations of these standards be grounds for refusal by the respective Houses of Congress to seat a candidate.” Groups that are purportedly non-political but who intend to influence the political process should be subject to the same standards, it continues. A section encouraging Congress to “adopt voluntary standards” for news coverage has been crossed out in pencil, quite probably by Truman, a strong advocate of freedom of the press.

The Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 imposed spending limits on campaigns of $25,000 for a Senate seat and $5000 for a House seat and required reporting of receipts and expenditures. This statute was ineffective, so attempts were made in the early 1950’s by Truman, Boyle and others for election law reform. Their efforts were unavailing; the next major campaign finance law would not be enacted for another two decades. And despite public financing of campaigns, and limitations on spending and contributions, there have been so many loopholes and evasions that many of the problems highlighted in this document remain very much with us.