United States v. Anchorage Central Labor Council

• Decision Date: 22 April 1961
• Docket Number: Cr. No. 4305.
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. ANCHORAGE CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL, Anchorage, Alaska (AFL-CIO), Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Alaska

193 F. Supp. 504

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. ANCHORAGE CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL, Anchorage, Alaska (AFL-CIO), Defendant.

Cr. No. 4305.

United States District Court D. Alaska, at Anchorage.

April 22, 1961.

George M. Yeager, U. S. Atty., Fairbanks, Alaska, and James R. Clouse, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Anchorage, Alaska, for plaintiff.

John L. Rader and Clifford J. Groh (of Hartlieb, Groh & Rader), Anchorage, Alaska, for defendant.

HODGE, District Judge.

The defendant in this case was indicted for violation of the statute making it unlawful for any corporation or any labor organization to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election at which a Senator or Representative in Congress are to be voted upon, being Section 610, Title 18 U.S.C.A. (Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 723, as amended). The indictment charged that the defendant labor organization, during the months of October and November, 1958, made an "expenditure" from the general fund of the organization in connection with the general election held in the State of Alaska on November 25, 1958, in which two United States Senators and one United States Representative in Congress were to be elected, such expenditure consisting of the sum of $244, paid from its general treasury fund to Northern Television, Inc., for the purpose of paying for the expense of four fifteen-minute television broadcasts sponsored by the defendant over television Station KTVA at Anchorage, which broadcasts included expressions of political advocacy and were intended to influence the general electorate, including electors who were not members of any labor union or of the defendant organization, and to affect the results of said election.

The defendant is an association of some twenty-six local labor unions and is governed by delegates elected or appointed by the member unions. It assesses no dues against the individual union members, but collects a "per capita tax" from the unions, the amount of which is largely determined by the unions themselves. It also collected from the member unions contributions to a "TV fund" to conduct television programs under the title of "Building and Serving Anchorage," which had been regularly broadcast each week since the fall of 1955.

Upon the trial of the case before a jury and at the conclusion of the Government's case, the Court sustained a motion of the defendant for judgment of acquittal.

By reason of the importance of this matter, especially in the Ninth Circuit, and by stipulation of counsel, the oral decision of the Court, as revised for clarification or correction, is reduced to writing for publication:

I am persuaded that there is really no essential dispute of fact in this case. The facts are admitted by the defendant, which is a rather unusual situation in a criminal case except under pleas of nolo contendere.

Counsel for the Government has suggested an issue of fact as to whether or not the broadcasts were electioneering, and that may be so, but, yet, I do not believe that that issue is controlling here.

I find that it is the duty of the Court to determine as a matter of law whether the evidence produced on behalf of the Government with respect to the admitted expenditure of funds by the Anchorage Central Labor Council in payment of the broadcasts complained of constitutes a violation of the statute, being Section 610 of Title 18. This is not an easy problem. There are not many decisions of the federal courts upon the problem. Of those we do find all but two are decisions not upon the weight and sufficiency of the evidence but rather upon the sufficiency of the indictment. It is necessary to determine this question of law on the interpretation placed by the courts upon this statute, and I should like to first review them very briefly.

First of all there is the case of United States v. C. I. O., 335 U.S. 106, 68 S.Ct. 1349, 92 L.Ed. 1849, decided by the Supreme Court in 1948. In this decision, in which the history of the legislation is reviewed extensively, it is held that the statute does not forbid labor unions from taking part in pending elections by publishing and circulating newspapers in the regular course of conduct among their membership, although the costs of publication are paid from the unions' general funds, regardless of their source. This apparently was true despite the fact that the indictment charged that the newspaper published by the CIO not only went to the members but that some one thousand copies were distributed to the public at large. The Supreme Court did not seem to be particularly impressed with that fact. It seemed to be the thought in the majority opinion and concurring opinion that the test was largely whether or not this publication was in the regular course of the union's activities.

In the case of United States v. International Union of United Automobile Workers, decided by the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in 1956, 138 F.Supp. 53, it is expressly held, in a situation almost parallel to this case at bar, that expenditures made by a union from its general fund to defray the cost of a television broadcast, sponsored by the union from a commercial television station, which urged and endorsed the selection of certain persons as candidates for congressional office, which included expressions of political advocacy intended by the union to influence the electorate, were not "expenditures" prohibited by this act even though the funds came from union dues and were not obtained by voluntary subscription of union members.

This decision reviews the CIO case and the decision of the Second Circuit in the case of United States v. Painters' Local Union, 2 Cir., 172 F.2d 854, in which it is held that the contribution or expenditure by a union for placing and paying for a political ad in a daily newspaper of general circulation, and a political broadcast over a commercial radio station, out of the general funds of the union, was not an expenditure prohibited by the act. A careful reading of the Painters' Union case, however, does indicate the theory of the court in that case was partly at least de minimus. It was a small painters' organization and a rather small cost. But this decision of the Second Circuit does distinguish between a normal activity of the labor organization and a contribution made out of a general fund from union dues for a political or a particular political broadcast.

The Second Circuit also reviews the...