The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. PIRICIN. Thank you, sir.

(Mr. Piricin's prepared statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF ARNOLD PETERSEN, NATIONAL SECRETARY, SOCIALIST LABOR PARTY OF AMERICA, NEW YORK, N. Y.

The Socialist Labor Party of America (organized in 1876, and reorganized on its present basis in 1890) is deeply concerned about some of the provisions in the bill (S. 1333) designed further to amend the Communications Act of 1934, provisions, which, if incorporated in the Communications Act, would adversely affect our constitutional right of free speech through the powerful medium of radio broadcasting.

The Socialist Labor Party is opposed to that portion of proposed section 333 (p. 30 of the printed bill) that provides that no network would be licensed to provide primary broadcast service "for more than 25 percent of the population of the continental United States as determined in the last preceding decennial census." Such a limitation would impose an unnecessary hardship on broadcasters with limited financial means. It would make it necessary for an organization such as the Socialist Labor Party to purchase time on as many as four networks to obtain national coverage. If it is the intent of the provision to prevent monopoly, the practical working out of it, if adopted, might very well be the establishment of a far more thorough monopoly than exists today, by dividing the Nation into four parts, with a single network having what could very well be a broadcasting monopoly in each. If such arbitrary restrictions can be applied to radio, what will there be to prevent the application of similar restrictions to newspapers? The provision is, in our opinion, dangerous in the extreme; it is not in harmony with the constitutional guaranty of free speech, and it is potentially totalitarian in that it sets up governmental controls over the dissemination of ideas by imposing restriction as to territory, and so forth.

* * *

The Socialist Labor Party is opposed to that portion of proposed section 315 (p. 21 of the printed bill) letter “(c)” which provides that "No licensee shall, during a political campaign, permit the use of the facilities of a broadcast station for or against any candidate for any public office except (3) by a regularly organized political party whose candidates' names appear on the ballot and whose duly chosen responsible officers designate a person to use such facilities." The adoption of this provision would nullify the present section 3.422 of the Federal Communications Commission rules which defines a "legally qualified candidate." Keeping in mind the excessive ballot requirements in many States, notably California, Ohio, Illinois, and New York, the proposed change would deny the Socialist Labor Party, and other minority groups, an opportunity to broadcast in those States, if they should fail to qualify for a place on the ballot, notwithstanding the fact that we would duly nominate candidates for public office, and conduct a campaign in their behalf. To cite a specific instance, we reproduce herewith the letter that was sent by the Federal Communications Commission to radio station WJW, Cleveland, Ohio, when the latter refused to sell time for a broadcast by the Socialist Labor Party's candidate for President of the United States, on the ground that the candidate's name would not appear on the Ohio ballot :

Mr. W. M. O'NEIL,

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,
Washington, D. C., September 5, 1944.

President, Radio Station WJW, Cleveland, Ohio.

DEAR SIR: This is in reference to your letters of July 11 and August 11, 1944, which were submitted in response to the Commission's request for your comments concerning the complaint of the Socialist Labor Party that, after having made arrangements for the sale of time to the party for the broadcast of speeches by its candidate for President of the United States, you refused to make available such time. You state that one of the reasons for your refusal to permit the broadcast was that the Socialist Labor Party's candidate "was not on the ballot at the time, and was consequently not a legally qualified candidate."

Section 315 of the Communications Act provides: "If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station, and the Commission shall make rules and regulations to carry this provision into effect: Provided,

That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section * *

Section 3.422 of the Commission's rules, adopted pursuant to the foregoing provision, defines a "legally qualified candidate" as follows:

"A legally qualified candidate' means any person who has publicly announced that he is a candidate for nomination by a convention of a political party or for nomination or election in a primary, special, or general election, municipal, county, State, or National, and who meets the qualifications prescribed by the applicable laws to hold the office for which he is a candidate, so that he may be voted for by the electorate, directly or by means of delegates or electors, and who (a) has qualified for a place on the ballot or (b) is eligible under the applicable law to be voted for by sticker, by writing in his name on the ballot, or by other method, and (1) has been duly nominated by a political party which is commonly known and regarded as such, or (2) makes a substantial showing that he is a bona fide candidate for nomination or office, as the case may be."

It should be noted that section 3.422 does not require that a candidate's name appear on the printed election ballot. As is pointed out in the rule, a person may be a legally qualified candidate within the meaning of section 315 even though his name does not appear on the ballot if he possesses the constitutional qualifications for the office and if, in addition, under the applicable law he is eligible to be voted for by sticker or by writing in his name on the ballot and if he has been duly nominated by a political party which is commonly known and regarded as such.

An examination of the pertinent Ohio State's Ohio General Code, sections 4785-100a, 4785–131 (6), discloses that under the laws of Ohio, a person whose name does not appear on the ballot is eligible to be voted for by writing his name in on the ballot.

So far as appears, no question has been raised concerning the constitutional qualifications of Mr. Teichert to hold the office of President nor is there any dispute concerning his nomination for presidency by the Socialist Labor Party.

It would appeal also that the Socialist Labor Party is "a political party which is commonly known and regarded as such." It appears that the Socialist Labor Party, which was first organized at Philadelphia, Pa., in July 1876, has participated in all Presidential elections since 1892 and that since that time it has either nominated its own candidates for President or has supported the nominees of one of the other minority parties. In this connection, it is significant that the Socialist Labor Party in included in the list of the five political parties recently announced by the War Department as qualified to obtain time for the broadcast of political addresses to American armed forces overseas.

You are therefore requested to advise the Commission promptly as to what steps you intend to take to comply with the requirements of section 315 of the Communications Act and section 3.422 of the Commission's rules and regulations. By direction of the Commission,

T. J. SLOWIE, Secretary.

We believe that the present FCC definition of a legally qualified candidate provides a measure of equal opportunity, whereas the proposed change would deny the use of the powerful medium of radio to candidates who would be kept off the ballot in various States by virtually prohibitive ballot requirements; the proposed change would likewise deny radio listeners the opportunity to hear the discussion of issues of vital concern to them. "Public interest, convenience, and necessity” will best be served by retaining, and, if possible, extending the existing provisions for political broadcasting.

The Socialist Labor Party favors the proposed two new sections to be added to section 17, part 1, of title III, with particular reference to that portion of proposed section 330 (p. 24 of the printed bill), which provides that "Neither the licensee of any station so used nor the Commission shall have the power to censor, alter, or in any manner affect or control the substance of any program material to be used: Provided, however, That no licensee shall be required to permit the broadcasting of any material which advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force or violence etc." The Socialist Labor Party has encountered repeated difficulties with radio censorship censorship which resulted in certain radio stations denying us time because they did not agree with our views. In the case of radio station KFRC, San Francisco, Calif., in December 1944, we were told that the station did not believe that "it would be in the public interest to lend its facilities to the advocacy of the destructive doctrines of Karl Marx," which was the station's prejudiced and erroneous man

* * *

ner of referring to the civilized program and principles of the Socialist Labor Party. And in the case of WNBH, New Bedford, Mass., we were denied the right to broadcast on January 31, 1946, because, according to James M. Patt, manager of WNBH, "It was apparent that the text of the proposed broadcast has for its purpose the destruction of our form of government, and, of course, any minor alterations would not alter its purpose." Here was an obvious case of corporation censorship over political and economic opinions of American citizens. The right to alter or abolish any form of government is inherent in the American tradition, and it is specifically provided for by article V of the Constitution of the United States. It is to be hoped that the proposed section 330 will favorably be recommended by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and that it will be interpreted as its plain language suggests, i. e., that "Neither the licensee of any station so used nor the Commission shall have the power to censor, alter, or in any manner affect or control the substance of any program material so used" [italics ours], and that this prohibition will apply to "discussion of public or political questions" as proposed section 330 provides.

The Socialist Labor Party respectfully recommends that the portion of proposed section 330 (p. 24 of the printed bill, beginning with line 7) be amplified, i. e., following the word "questions" (line 12) that the following be added: "including the views of each political party of record." This recommendation is made on the basis of our experience with individual radio stations and with the networks. During the recent discussion of the Taft-Hartley bill, the Socialist Labor Party requested the major networks (ABC, CBS, MBS, and NBC) to give it equal opportunity to present its views on the then pending legislation. Only the ABC network responded with a 15-minute period. MBS admittedly allotted 30 periods for the discussion of this highly controversial (certainly public and political) question, but the Socialist Labor Party was not included. Mutual's arbitrary decision was that all sides of the question had been heard. Much the same attitude was taken by NBC and CBS. It is to be hoped that the adoption of proposed section 330 will bring relief to minority parties and groups having unique views on important public questions, and especially to an American political party of more than 50 years' standing-the Socialist Labor Party of America-and that the eventual adoption of proposed section 330 will give full meaning to the radio phrases "equal opportunity" and "freedom of speech" on the air.

The CHAIRMAN. The concluding witness is Mr. Bernard Johnpoll. STATEMENT OF BERNARD JOHNPOLL, LICENSEE, RADIO STATION KVOS, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mr. JOHNPOLL. Senator, my written statement is very short, and my supplementary statement will be entirely different from it."

I just wanted to take up two or three of the major provisions that I favor, and one that I oppose, which I should have mentioned in my statement but did not have time.

Section 5 is, I think, the most important section, and the one which has had the least coverage here by witnesses. It is very important, because it will divide the Federal Communications Commission into two separate and distinct subcommissions, something which should have been done a long time ago.

The broadcaster is distinct and separate from the common carrier. I think that the common carrier's problems cannot in any way be compared to the problems of the broadcaster.

I believe that the common carrier division, however, should have within it the right to control facsimile broadcasting, for the primary reason that the facsimile broadcaster should be forced to give everyone the opportunity to receive what he sends, and it should not be limited to the larger newspapers but should be permitted to the smaller newspapers too.

I can speak here from some knowledge of the small newspaper and small radio-station problem, as a newspaperman and a radio-station

owner.

The primary problem that faces the small newspaper, if facsimile should come in, would be the possibility of its demise, because of the fact that the small newspaper could not afford to construct a facsimile transmitting station. However, if a facsimile transmitting station were made available to him, as a common carrier, that problem would cease to exist for him. I think that something should be put into the bill to that effect.

I also feel very strongly as to section 7, which requires the Commission to equitably distribute the frequencies that exist. But I think here, too, the wording might be made stronger.

Let me tell you very briefly of a situation right here in the District of Columbia. Knowing full well that the Commission would grant a license preferably to one of the outlying areas of the District having a different name from the District of Columbia, a number of operators opened stations in Maryland and in Virginia, where the service of the station was primarily for the District of Columbia. From an engineering standpoint and from the standpoint of the commerce of those stations, they were District of Columbia stations.

The CHAIRMAN. If you would care to prepare a redraft of that section, we would be very glad to have you do it.

Mr. JOHNPOLL. I will try to do that, if that is all right with you, Senator. There are five such stations, of which two are in Silver Spring, one is in Arlington, and one in that vicinity, the advertising sales of which to District of Columbia merchants in proportion to their sales to merchants in their own areas are 80 percent in the District of Columbia, in one case, 40 percent District of Columbia in another case, 89 percent District of Columbia in a third case, 80 percent District of Columbia in a fourth case, and 85 percent District of Columbia in a fifth case.

Maybe the Commission feels, as it rightly should feel, I believe that the economic issues involved should not be raised unless there is a definite policy that all of the stations will be wiped out. That is a legitimate and an honest theory on the part of the Commission.

But when it grants to areas outside of the District of Columbia these station permits, and thereby ties up a frequency for an area of as much as 280 miles in one case, and I think in the least of the cases for an area of 190 miles, and keeps worthy cities from having radio stations, I think the Commission is definitely in the wrong. And I think that instead of the Commission raising the question, "Should Alexandria have a station," it should raise the question, "Is the 25-millivolt per meter contour in the area now properly covered?"

But the Commission will do nothing of the sort. Instead, the Commission asks, “Is it in the metropolitan district of New York?"

The city of Plainfield, N. J., with a population of 40,000 for the city proper, and 130,000 for the area immediately adjacent thereto, has never been able to get a frequency to put a radio station up, primarily because the Commission, if it came in in any case, would say, "You are a part of the metropolitan district of New York."

That is despite the fact that of the 22 stations in New York, 18 do not give adequate daytime service into Plainfield, N. J., and Plainfield itself has no local service.

The other point, and the one point on which I will disagree with the work of the committee, Senator, is section 25.

I think it should be rewritten to read, in the case of newspapersand here again I want to assure you that I am very sympathetic to newspapermen-that the newspaper shall not be granted a station in areas where it is the sole newspaper, and where there is reason to believe that no other frequencies exist.

That situation would obtain, for example, in the area around New Jersey and Connecticut, in the New York area, in parts of Iowa and Illinois, where one frequency might possibly be found, but I doubt even that that could be found.

I think a specific rule should be put in there which would state that that would be the only time that the Commission could consider newspapers as being a monopoly.

Because if they have the only frequency available, it is apparent that nobody else can get in there. And that might create the threat of a monopoly from both the commercial and the political point of view.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Johnpoll.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Johnpoll is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF BERNARD K. JOHNPOLL

I should like to first stress the point that censoring of radio programs is a threat to the freedom of speech of this country. This point, I think, will be contested by no one, least of all the Federal Communications Commission and its members. But I believe that censorship of economic, political, or social theories by operators of radio stations is as much a threat to that freedom as censorship by the Federal Communications Commission.

As I understand this bill it simply-in the case of political censorship—lays down a policy that all sides to all political questions should be heard equally. Unless my years as a Washington reporter went to waste I think I can do a pretty good job of analyzing bills that are before congressional committees.

I feel this is a necessary and just regulation. I can cite several cases where such a regulation would be of great use. Particularly so in the case of smaller stations. I know of one case which I cannot discuss except if the names are deleted-where a local politician received a grant for a radio station in up-State New York and proceeded to blithely ignore his opponents' pleas for time. His answer to all requests for time were simply that there was none available on the day sought. When he finally yielded he gave time which gave him a definite advantage.

I feel that this segment of the proposed law should, if anything, be strengthened. It should assure each political candidate equal time on the air with the provision that failure by a station operator or of a network to grant such time be considered grounds for revocation of license.

I also feel that news commentators should be forced, during election campaigns, to yield as much time to rebuttal as they may take in supporting the candidacy of a particular man or party.

There is another provision of this bill which I think merits the approval and perhaps even the acclaim of all those interested in the radio industry. I speak of that portion of the bill which divides the FCC's activities into two separate portions. One of these is to be specifically limited to broadcasting problems the other limited to communications.

With that in mind I should like to propose some simple additions to the bill which would better effectuate a program of freedom of speech and press and more adequately meet the Nation's needs in the field of radio and communications.

First I feel that facsimile transmission be put under communications instead of broadcast. As a public carrier censorship would be impossible and all newspapers would have equal access to the benefits of the modern developments. Now these improvements are available only to the larger, wealthier ones.