NOTES

CHAPTER TWELVE

1. Statistical Abstract, 1965, p. 384.

2. Ibid., p. 386.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid., p. 385.

5. Quoted by Joseph S. Clark, Congress: The Sapless Branch, Harper and Row, N.Y., 1964, p. 32. Senator Clark initiated his public analysis with The Senate Establishment, Hill and Wang, N.Y., 1963. Hereafter these books are cited as Congress and Senate.

6. Congress, p. 17.

7. Ibid., p. 20.

8. Ibid., pp. 22-23. New York Times, April 11, 1965; IV, 6:4.

10. Richard L. Madden, Martin J. Steadman and associates, in the New York Herald Tribune, August 5-18, 1963; the series of articles titled "Our Sideline Legislators," dealt at considerable length and in detail with the entrepreneurial and suspect pecuniary activities of leading members of the New York State Legislature, the second most powerful legislative body in the western hemisphere. A great deal of sordid under-the-counter stuff--such as the acquisition by gift or at a bargain of interests in banks, insurance companies, loan companies, etc., that either did business with the state or obtained special favors from it--was found on every hand. The series should be read by students of government as a model of what goes on in all the state legislatures and as showing what the true interests are of average American politicians. Their last interest, it should be asserted, is the proper operation of government. The Harvard Law Review, April, 1963, published an important long, unsigned article titled "Conflicts of Interest of State Legislators."

11. Austin Ranney and Wilmoore Kendall, Democracy and the American Party System, Harcourt, Brace & Co., N.Y., 1956, pp. 157-66.

12. Congress, p. 112.

13. Ibid., pp. 112-13.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid., p. 212.

16. V. O. Key, Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups, Crowell, N.Y., 1958, p. 347.

17. Drew Pearson, "Washington Merry-Go-Round: Congressmen's Clients," New York Post, June 22, 1966, p. 46.

18. Congress, p. 114.

19. Ibid., p. 173.

20. Ibid., pp. 186-87.

21. New York Times, July 15, 1965; 10:1.

22. Congress, p. 118.

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid., p. 119.

25. Ibid., p. 189.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid., p. 191.

28. Ibid., p. 192.

29. Senate, passim. For two whole days Senator Clark doggedly presented his objective analysis on the floor of the Senate, subject to correction and emendation by other senators. Except for niggling about some minor points by Senators Long and Mansfield, the Establishment made no effort at refutation. Indeed, Clark's presentation was irrefutable. It cited the cold record throughout.

30. Congress, p. 183.

31. Ibid., p. 181.

32. Senate, p. 105.

33. Eisenstein, p. 215.

34. Ibid., p. 216.

35. Ibid., pp. 216-17.

36. Ibid., p. 218.

37. Ibid., p. 220.

38. Stanley S. Surrey, "The Federal Income Tax Base for Individuals," Columbia Law Review, 815, 829; 1958. Cited by Eisenstein, p. 220.

39. Eisenstein, p. 126.

40. Ibid.

41. Ibid., p. 200.

42. Ibid., pp. 203-4.

43. From words such as "majority," "almost all," "nearly all" or "with few exceptions" in what follows, the reader should not conclude that the text reflects some a priori bias against Congress. It is the consensus of seasoned down-to-earth observers on the point made here that most congressmen garner incomes ranging far above their salaries. As stated in the New York Herald Tribune, June 16, 1965; 10:7-8, "The great majority of Congressmen combine public service with private profit. They earn outside incomes from private business and professions, despite their $30,000-a-year income, plus expenses and lavish fringe benefits." Many other highly respectable sources could be cited for the same conclusion.

44. New York Herald Tribune, June 11, 1965; 16:1.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid., June 13, 1965; 14:1.

47. Ibid., June 10, 1965; 1:5.

48. Ibid., June 15, 1965; 10.

49. Ibid., June 13, 1965; 14:1.

50. Ibid.

51. Ibid., June 13, 1965; 14.

52. Ibid., June 14, 1965.

53. Ibid.

54. Wall Street Journal, August 11, 1964; 1:6.

55. New York Herald Tribune, June 10, 1965; 1:5.

56. New York Times, September 12, 1965; 46:1.

57. New York Herald Tribune, June 14, 1965.

58. Ibid., June 10, 1965.

59. Ibid.

60. Ibid., June 14, 1965.

61. Ibid., June 15, 1965.

62. Ibid.

63. Ibid.

64. Ibid.

65. New York Post, June 7, 1966; 34:3-5.

66. Ibid., June 22, 1966; 46:3-5.

67. Ibid.

68. Ibid., April 29, 1966; 46:3-5.

69. Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, December 18, 1965.

70. New York Post, April 25, 1966; 32:3-5.

71. Wall Street Journal, July 14, 1966; 1:6.

72. New York Times, July 7, 1966; 3:2-3.

73. New York Herald Tribune, June 16, 1965.

74. The reader who wants to acquaint himself with the historical background of campaign collecting should consult Louise Overacker, Money in Elections, The Macmillan Co., N.Y., 1932; and Presidential Campaign Funds, Boston University Press, 1946; and Jasper B. Shannon, Money and Politics, Random House, N.Y., 1959. There have also been many fully recorded congressional investigations and many informal writings on the same subject.

75. New York Times, October 27, 1964; 31:4.

76. Donald R. Matthews, U.S. Senators and Their World, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1960, p. 19.

77. Ibid., p. 15.

78. Ibid., p. 14.

79. Ibid., pp. 15-17.

80. Ibid., p. 19.

81. Ibid., p. 20.

82. Ibid., p. 21.

83. Ibid., p. 282.

84. Ibid., p. 283.

85. Ibid., pp. 25-26.

86. New York Times, May 3, 1962; 1:1.

87. On the score of poor boys in politics there are those who will say that the Senate was most corrupt prior to the popular election of senators when rich men fairly openly bought their seats from pliant state legislatures and the Senate was widely known as "The Millionaire's Club." To this I reply: Every one of the indubitably corrupt pre-1913 millionaire senators was a self-erected poor boy, and many were functionally illiterate. A poor (or rich) boy in politics who has not been subjected to a great deal of educational correction or who has not devoted himself to a great deal of intellectual self-improvement (as Lincoln did) is as dangerous to the public, the poor included, as a rattlesnake. Melancholy though it is to record, it is a fact that could be shown by thousands of pointed instances, with few in exception. After forty years of close observation, whenever I hear of the poverty-stricken beginnings of some candidate, unless the record also shows some considerable successful intellectual strivings on his part, alarm bells start going off throughout my nervous system. The odds, I know, are overwhelming that he is no Lincoln or even Truman, is more probably another Dirksen or Johnson.