[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 2, Chapters 7 - 9]
[Chapter 8.  Elections and Election Campaigns]
[C. Campaign Practices]
[Â§ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------