for any national bank to make a contribution in connection with any election to any political office, court would interpret said section in light of its language and purpose. Id.

Ambiguity in former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting political campaign contributions by national banks would be resolved in favor of lenity. Id.

Strict standards of definiteness had to be applied to former section 610 of Title 18 because the free dissemination of ideas might be inhibited thereunder. U. S. v. Chestnut, D.C.N.Y.1975, 394 F.Supp. 581.

If a strict construction was to be given to former section 610 of Title 18 making it unlawful for labor organization to make contribution or expenditure in connection with certain elections, it was not the degree of activity but the type of activity which would determine whether or not an expenditure had been made. U. S. v. Construction & General Laborers Local Union No. 264, D.C.Mo.1951, 101 F.Supp. 869.

3. Construction with other laws

Violation of former section 610 of Title 18 pertaining to political contributions by national banks was not a lesser included offense of a violation of section 656 of Title 18 pertaining to the willful misapplication of funds by a national bank officer. U. S. v. Barket, C.A.Mo.1975, 530 F.2d 181.

Section 656 of Title 18 pertaining to the willful misapplication of national bank funds was meant to protect the funds of banks with a federal relationship, whereas former section 610 of Title 18 pertaining to political contributions by national banks had for one of its purposes the protection of the electoral process from the influence of corporate and union funds. Id.

Conviction of a bank officer under section 655 of Title 18 pertaining to the misapplication of national bank funds required proof that the officer willfully misapplied funds for the benefit of himself or another person, for the purpose of defrauding or injuring the bank; in contrast, a conviction under former section 610 of Title 18 pertaining to political contributions by a national bank required proof that the defendant consented to the contribution or expenditure of the bank's funds in connection with an election, and no purpose to defraud or injure the bank was required. Id.

National bank officer's acquittal on indictment's second count, charging a violation of section 656 of Title 18, did not bar prosecution of him on first count, charging a violation of former section 610 of Title 18, since violations of the two sections must be proved by different evidence and the two counts therefore charged different offenses. Id.

Former section 610 of Title 18, which prohibited corporate expenditures in campaigns for federal office and which stated that phrase "contribution or expenditure" should include any direct or indirect payment to any candidate, campaign committee, or political party or organization, supplemented rather than replaced the definition of section 591 of Title 18 of prohibited expenditures to require a partisan purpose. Ash v. Cort, C.A. Pa.1974, 496 F.2d 416, reversed on other grounds 95 S.Ct. 2080, 422 U.S. 66, 45 L.Ed.2d 26.

Section 501 of Title 29 which prohibits unlawful conversion of union funds did not duplicate former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting contribution of labor union funds to the campaign of candidates for federal office with respect to campaign contributions as section 501 of Title 29 punishes union officers who "consent

Note 4

to" political contributions while former section 610 of Title 18 punished an officer who "abstracts or converts" union funds to use in federal political campaign. U. S. v. Boyle, 1973, 482 F.2d 755, 157 U.S.App.D.C. 166, certiorari denied 94 S.Ct. 593, 414 U.S. 1076, 38 L.Ed.2d 483.

4. Purpose

The evil at which Congress had struck in former section 610 of Title 18 was use of corporate or union funds to influence public at large (as distinguished, for instance, from union membership) to vote for particular candidate or particular party. U. S. v. International Union United Auto., Aircraft and Agr. Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), Mich. 1957, 77 S.Ct. 529, 352 U.S. 567, 1 L.Ed.2d 563, rehearing denied 77 S.Ct. 808, 353 U. S. 943, 1 L. Ed. 2d 763.

Intent of former section 610 of Title 18 was to permit expenditures from separate, segregated funds if the contributions to it were voluntary and to prohibit expenditures from a union's general treasury. U. S. v. Boyle, 1973, 482 F.2d 755, 157 U.S.App.D.C. 166, certiorari denied 94 S.Ct. 593, 414 U.S. 1076, 38 L.Ed.2d 483.

Under former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting any corporation or labor organization from making a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election for federal office, Congress intended to insure against officers proceeding in such matters without obtaining the consent of shareholders by forbidding all such expenditures. U. S. v. Lewis Food Co., C.A. Cal.1966, 366 F.2d 710.

Interests reflected in former section 610 of Title 18 were to destroy the influence over elections which corporations exercised through financial contributions and to prevent corporate officers from using corporate funds for contributions to political parties without the consent of the stockholders. Miller v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., D.C.Pa.1975, 394 F.Supp. 58, affirmed 530 F.2d 964.

Purpose of former section 610 of Title 18, which proscribed any expenditure or contribution by a corporation or labor organization to a candidate, campaign committee, political party or organization in connection with any federal election, was to assure a popularly elected government for all the people in the United States and its main concern was to eliminate the effect of aggregated wealth on federal elections. Ash v. Cort, D.C.Pa.1972, 350 F. Supp. 227, affirmed 471 F.2d 811.

Primary purpose of former section 610 of Title 18 which proscribes any expenditure or contribution by a corporation to a candidate, campaign committee, political party or organization in connection with any federal election, was to protect the public, rather than defending shareholders. Id.

Purpose of former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting labor unions from making political contributions was to prevent corruptive influences on elective process and to prevent use of general union funds to support ideas and candidates opposed by even slightest minority of union membership. U. S. v. Boyle, D.C.D.C.1972, 338 F. Supp. 1028.

Goals of regulating campaign financing in accordance with due process should be to promote an informed electorate, to insure that elected officials are responsive to needs of majority who elected them and, as far as possible, to prevent elected office from becoming exclusive prize of influential or rich. U. S. v. First Nat. Bank of Cincinnati, D.C.Ohio 1971, 329 F.Supp. 1251.

Purpose of former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting corporations and labor un

Note 4

ions from making political contributions was to prevent corporations and labor unions from controlling elections, and to protect union members from having union officials endorse candidates or attempt to influence voters which might be contrary to wishes of individual members. U. S. v. Anchorage Central Labor Council, D.C.Alaska 1961, 193 F.Supp. 504.

In enacting former section 610 of Title 18 making it unlawful for labor organization to make contribution or expenditure in connection with certain elections, Congress did not intend that an uncertain, insignificant amount should be considered as an expenditure and used as a basis for a criminal prosecution, and did not intend to deprive labor organization from making expenditures, if necessary, in connection with registration of voters. U. S. v. Construction & General Laborers Local Union No. 264, D.C.Mo.1951, 101 F. Supp. 869.

5. Retroactive effect

Even if provision of former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting financing of establishment administration, and solicitation of contributions for voluntary political funds from general union monies was impliedly repealed by 1972 amendment, prosecution begun before amendment would not abate in view of section 109 of Title 1. Pipefitters Local Union No. 562 v. U. S., Mo.1972, 92 S.Ct. 2247, 407 U. S. 385, 33 L.Ed.2d 11.

The insertion in former section 610 of Title 18 of definition of the phrase "contribution or expenditure" to supplement definitions of "contribution" and "expenditure" did not make illegal conduct which had prior to 1972 amendments been legal. U. S. v. Chestnut, D.C.N.Y. 1975, 394 F.Supp. 581.

6. Definitions

Term "separate" in 1972 amendment of former section 610 of Title 18 relating to political contributions by corporations and unions was synonymous wth "segregated"; term "threat" included creation of appearance of intent to inflict injury even without design to carry it out; and "dues, fees, or other monies required as a condition of membership in a labor organization or as a condition of employment" included contributions effectively assessed even if not actually required for employment or union membership. Pipefitters Local Union No. 562 v. U. S., Mo. 1972, 92 S.Ct. 2247, 407 U.S. 385, 33 L.Ed. 2d 11.

7. Power of Congress

Congress may legitimately regulate federal campaign financing. U. S. V. Boyle, 1973, 482 F.2d 755, 157 U.S.App.D. C. 166, certiorari denied 94 S.Ct. 593, 414 U.S. 1076, 38 L.Ed.2d 483.

Congress has constitutional power to prohibit contributions to be made by certain corporations in connection with any election at which, among others, representatives in Congress are to be voted for. U. S. v. Brewers' Ass'n, D.C.Pa.1916, 239 F. 163.

8. Contributions or expenditures within section

1972 amendment to former section 610 of Title 18 relating to political contributions by corporations and unions permitted union officials to establish, administer, and solicit contributions for political fund, provided fund was separate and segregated and that contributions and expenditures not be financed through physical force, job discrimination, or financial reprisal or threat thereof, or through dues, fees, or other monies required as condition of membership in

labor organization or as condition of employment. Pipefitters Local Union No. 562 v. U. S., Mo.1972, 92 S.Ct. 2247, 407 U.S. 385, 33 L.Ed.2d 11. "Expenditure" within provision of former section 251 of this title prohibiting election contributions and expenditures was not a word of art, had no definitely defined meaning and applicability of word to prohibition of particular acts had to be determined from circumstances surrounding its employment. U. S. v. Congress of Industrial Organizations, 1948, 68 S.Ct. 1349, 335 U.S. 106, 92 L.Ed. 1849.

The expenditure by a small labor organization of $111.14 to pay cost of political advertisement in daily newspaper of general circulation and of $32.50 to pay cost of political radio broadcast over commercial radio station advocating rejection of a candidate for Republican nomination for President and his defeat in Presidential election if nominated and rejection of six incumbent Congressmen as candidates for reelection and their defeat in Congressional election if nominated did not violate former section 610 of Title 18. U. S. v. Painters Local Union No. 481, C.A. Conn. 1949, 172 F.2d 854.

one

A corporation's payment to Senator's advertising firm of $12,000 for month's services to Senator's campaign constituted a "contribution" to Senator's campaign notwithstanding contention that the term "contribution" as defined in former section 610 of Title 18 did not include the term "payment". U. S. v. Chestnut, D.C.N.Y.1975, 394 F.Supp. 581.

The substance of a transaction and not its form controls where the transaction constitutes an illegal campaign contribution. Id.

Labor unions' contributions or expenditures of money in connection with political campaigns must be from voluntarily financed segregated union funds. Evans v. American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, D.C.N.Y.1973, 354 F.Supp. 823, reversed on other grounds 496 F.2d 305, certiorari denied 95 S.Ct. 688, 419 U.S. 1093, 42 L.Ed.2d 687, rehearing denied 95 S.Ct. 1342.

Where corporation expended its general funds to pay for advertisement to communicate to public its views as to honest campaigns and elections, and its views as to a statement made by an unnamed candidate for election aimed at community of which it was a part, without advocating election of any particular person or party, payment for advertisement did not constitute an "expenditure" within former section 610 of Title 18 proscribing any expenditure or contribution by a corporation or labor organization to a candidate, campaign committee, political party or organization in connection wth any federal election. Ash v. Cort, D.C.Pa.1972, 350 F. Supp. 227, affirmed, 471 F.2d 811.

Although former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting labor unions from making political contributions did not expressly preclude indirect contributions from general funds of union, legislative history of said section clearly indicated that Congress wished to prohibit any type of use of general union funds for designated purposes of said section, and this would include both a direct and/or an indirect contribution or expenditure. U. S. v. Boyle, D.C.D.C.1972, 338 F.Supp. 1028. Expenditures do not violate prohibition on corporate campaign contribution if officers of corporation do not use coгpогаtion's funds to endorse candidates or attempt to influence voters which may be

Labor union's payments to three employees, two of whom were regularly on payroll of union, one for a long period of time, and who devoted a considerable portion of their time to political activities, some of which activities, such as registration of voters and taking voters to polls, were for general benefit of those who were candidates and some of which were devoted exclusively to political interests of one candidate for Congress were not "expenditures" and "contributions" within former section 610 of Title 18 making it unlawful for labor organization to make "expenditure" or "contribution" in connection with certain elections. U. S. v. Construction & General Laborers Local Union No. 261, D.C.Mo.1951, 101 F. Supp. 869.

If state law permits corporation to use corporate funds as contributions in state elections, shareholders are on notice that the funds may be so used and have no recourse under any federal provision. Cort v. Ash, Pa.1975, 95 S.Ct. 2080.

Former section 610 of Title 18 making it unlawful for any national bank to make a contribution in connection with any election to any political office was applicable to state elections. U. S. v. Clifford, D.C.N.Y.1976, 409 F.Supp. 1070. Assessment by local union of radio artists to oppose initiative measure appearing on ballot in state election did not violate former section 251 of this title, since such section could not interfere with state elections. De Mille v. American Federation of Radio Artists, Los Angeles Local, Cal. App.1946, 175 P.2d 851.

11. Offenses

Labor organization's use of union dues to sponsor commercial television broadcast designed to influence election to select certain candidates for Congress would be violative of former section 610 of Title 18. U. S. v. International Union United Auto, Aircraft and Agr. Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), Mich.1957, 77 S.Ct. 529, 352 U.S. 567, 1 L. Ed.2d 563, rehearing denied 77 S.Ct. 808, 353 U.S. 943, 1 L. Ed.2d 763.

Provision of former section 251 of this title making it unlawful for any corporation or labor organization to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with certain elections did not forbid publication, by corporations and unions, in regular course of conducting their affairs, of trade or union periodicals published regularly for members, stockholders or customers, expressing views on candidates or proposed measures in regular course of publication. U. S. v. Congress of Industrial Organizations, 1948, 68 S.Ct. 1349, 335 U.S. 106, 92 L.Ed. 1849.

Note 14

corporate campaign spending. Miller v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., C.A. Pa.1974, 507 F.2d 759, on remand 394 F.Supp. 58.

Fact that no candidate or party was named in corporation's ad and pamphlet did not place them outside scope of prohibition of former section 610 of Title 18 against corporate expenditures in campaigns for federal office. Ash v. Cort, C.A. Pa.1974, 496 F.2d 416, reversed on other grounds 95 S.Ct. 2080, 422 U.S. 66, 45 L.Ed.2d 26.

Former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting corporate expenditures in campaigns for federal office would proscribe corporation's expenditures only if they financed partisan communications. Id.

Essential elements constituting violation of former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting labor organizations from making contributions and expenditures to candidates for federal offices were (1) contribution or expenditure, (2) by a labor organization, (3) for purpose of active electioneering (4) in connection with an election for named federal offices. U. S. v. Pipefitters Local Union No. 562, C.A.Mo.1970, 434 F.2d 1116, adhered to 434 F.2d 1127, reversed in part, vacated in part on other grounds 92 S.Ct. 2247, 407 U.S. 385, 33 L.Ed.2d 11.

Where all members of labor organization having same pay scale paid same dues and political fund was established by members authorizing allocations from their dues to the fund, expenditures out of fund for political purposes would violate former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting utilization, for political purposes, of moneys secured by dues required as condition of membership in union. Barber v. Gibbons, D.C.Mo.1973, 367 F. Supp. 1102.

Corporation's advertisements employing rating system to show percentage of each incumbent officer's "votes cast in favor of constitutional principles" did not violate prohibition of former section 610 of Title 18 on corporate campaign contributions. U. S. v. Lewis Food Co., D.C.Cal. 1964, 236 F.Supp. 849.

Former section 610 of Title 18, prohibiting labor organizations from making political contributions was not violated by local labor union association which made broadcasts to general public, as well as union members, criticizing candidates for United States senator or representative, where broadcasts were used in regular course of union activities upon voluntary contributions by unions for such programs. U. S. v. Anchorage Central Labor Council, D.C.Alaska 1961, 193 F.Supp. 504.

12. Intent

To prove a violation of former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting political campaign contributions by national banks in making postelection contributions, there had to be proof of an intent to influence the election. U. S. v. Clifford, D.C.N.Y. 1976, 409 F.Supp. 1070.

13. Persons liable

Indictment and conviction of labor union was not a condition precedent to indictment and conviction of its officers under former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting labor unions from making po litical contributions, and indictment against individual defendants charging conspiratorial and substantive violations of said section was not defective by reason of fact that labor union had not previously been indicted and convicted. U. S. v. Boyle, D.C.D.C.1972, 338 F.Supp.

1028.

14. Persons protected

Note 14

source of aggregated wealth and therefore of possible corrupting influence, and protection of ordinary stockholders was at best a secondary concern. Cort v. Ash, Pa.1975, 95 S.Ct. 2080.

Shareholders are within class for whose protection prohibition of former section 610 of Title 18 against corporate political contributions was enacted. Miller v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., C.A.Pa. 1974, 507 F.2d 759, on remand 394 F.Supp. 58.

15. Administrative remedies

Citizen of stockholder objecting to alleged violations in future elections of former section 610 of Title 18 had to pursue statutory remedy of a complaint to the Federal Election Commission, under section 437d of this title, and invoke its authority to request the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief. Cort v. Ash, Pa.1975, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 422 U.S. 66, 45

L.Ed.2d 26.

Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, section 437a et seq. of this title, constituted intervening law that relegated to the cognizance of the Federal Election Commission complaint of citizen or stockholder, filed in 1972, for injunctive relief against any alleged violations in future elections of former section 610 of Title 18. Id.

16. Private right of action

Private cause of action by stockholder to secure derivative damage relief was not available under former section 610 of Title 18, but rather was available, if at all, under state law governing corporations. Cort v. Ash, Pa.1975, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 422 U.S. 66, 45 L.Ed.2d 26.

Stockholders did not have private right of action against corporate directors to recover direct damages for alleged violations by the directors of former section 610 of Title 18. Miller v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., D.C.Pa.1975, 394 F.Supp. 58, affirmed 530 F.2d 964.

Former section 610 of Title 18 relating to political contributions by labor union did not authorize private right of action. McNamara v. Johnston, D.C.111.1973, 360 F.Supp. 517, certiorari denied 96 S.Ct. 1506, 425 U.S. 911, 47 L.Ed.2d 761.

Penal sanctions provided for in former section 610 of Title 18, which proscribed any expenditure or contribution by a corporation or labor organization to a candidate, campaign committee, political party or organization in connection with any federal election, were exclusive, and no private cause of action was implied. Ash v. Cort, D.C.Pa.1972, 350 F.Supp. 227, affirmed 471 F.2d 811.

Former section 610 of Title 18 which proscribed any expenditure or contribution by a corporation or labor organization to a candidate, campaign committee, political party or organization in connection with any federal election, did not require a corporation or labor union to sit idly by as accusations were made against it or industry or segment of business community of which it was a part.

Id.

17. Damages

There was no indication in legislative history of former section 610 of Title 18 which suggested a congressional intent to vest in corporate shareholders a federal right to damages for violation of said section. Cort v. Ash, Pa.1975, 95 S. Ct. 2080, 422 U.S. 66, 45 L.Ed.2d 26.

Even if a railroad union used dues money in violation of former section 610 of Title 18, that fact did not prevent union from setting up a union shop agreement in defense of an action for damages based on union's expulsion of certain members, in citing them to employer for violation of union shop agreement, espe

cially where breach of the union shop agreement occurred before the alleged misuse of the dues. Hostetler v. Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen, D.C.Md.1960, 183 F.Supp. 281, affirmed 287 F.2d 457, rehearing denied 294 F.2d 666, certiorari denied 82 S.Ct. 397, 368 U.S. 955, 7 L.Ed.2d 387.

18.

Injunction

Statutory remedy before Federal Election Commission was intended to govern all allegations of improper contributions in federal elections and the federal courts did not have jurisdiction of action by local union members to enjoin union officers from making contributions in alleged violation of former section 610 of Title 18. McNamara v. Johnston, C.A.Ill. 1975, 522 F.2d 1157, certiorari denied 96 S.Ct. 1506, 425 U.S. 911, 47 L.Ed.2d 761.

Plaintiff, who alleged, economic injury as a stockholder whose interest in corporation was worth less than it would be had defendant directors not caused challenged expenditures to be made, and further injury as a citizen and voter whose ability to secure a responsive federal government had been lessened, had standing to maintain action for an injunction and damages based on alleged violation of prohibition of former section 610 of Title 18 against corporate expenditures in campaigns for federal office. Ash v. Cort, C.A. Pa.1974, 496 F.2d 416. reversed on other grounds 95 S.Ct. 2080, 422 U.S. 66, 45 L.Ed.2d 26.

Plaintiff's standing to maintain action based on alleged violation of prohibition of former section 610 of Title 18 against corporate expenditures in campaign for federal office was not defeated by fact that his injuries were shared by countless others. Id.

Finding in stockholder's suit, brought on behalf of himself and of corporation, that plaintiff would not be irreparably harmed by denial of his request for preliminary injunction to enjoin corporation from furnishing funds for the publication and dissemination of a speech made by the corporation's president was not clearly erroneous despite contention that such publication and dissemination violated former section 610 of Title 18. Ash v. Cort, C.A. Pa.1973, 471 F.2d 811.

Where suit against corporation for direct damages for violation of former seetion 610 of Title 18 was dismissed because no private right of action existed for direct damages and because plaintiff stockholders failed to satisfy jurisdictional amount requirement, additional claim for injunctive relief could not be maintained under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction. Miller v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., D.C.Pa.1975, 394 F.Supp. 58, affirmed 530 F.2d 964.

19. Stockholders' derivative action

Stockholders who brought derivative action against communications corporation and certain of its directors for failure to collect debt owed by national committee of political party for communication services provided at party's convention, and who alleged that failure to collect the debt was in violation of prohibition of former section 610 of Title 18 against corporate campaign spending, had burden of establishing nexus between alleged gift and a federal election. Miller v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., C.A. Pa.1974, 507 F.2d 759, on remand 394 F. Supp. 58.

For stockholders of communications corporation to establish that directors of corporation had violated prohibition of former section 610 of Title 18 against corporate campaign spending by failing to collect from national committee of political party a debt owed for communication services provided at party's convention, stockholders would have to establish that corporation made contribution of money or something of value to the committee in connection with a federal election for the purpose of influencing the outcome of that election. Id.

To prove that communication corporation's failure to collect debt owed by national committee of political party for communication services provided at party convention constituted a "contribution" within prohibition of former section 610 of Title 18 against federal campaign spending, stockholders who brought derivative action would be required to establish that the corporation in fact made a gift to the committee of the value of the communication services and such gift could be shown by demonstrating that services were provided with no intention to collect for them, that valid debt was created at time services were rendered but was discharged formally or informally or that debt was no longer collectible as result of failure of corporation's directors to sue within appropriate period of limitations. Id.

Stockholders who brought derivative action against corporation and certain of its directors for failure to collect debt owed to the corporation by national committee of political party for communication services provided at party's convention and who contended that failure to collect the debt was violative of prohibition of former section 610 of Title 18 against corporate campaign spending were required to convince fact finder that a gift, whenever made, was made for purpose of aiding one candidate or party in a federal election and that legitimate business justifications did not underlie alleged inaction of directors. Id. Even if stockholders, who brought action aganst directors of corporation based on violations of prohibition of former section 610 of Title 18 against corporate expenditures in campaigns for federal office, had no live claim for injunctive relief after election, the dispute over damages rendered controversy justiciable. Ash v. Cort, C.A. Pa.1974, 496 F.2d 416, reversed on other grounds 95 S.Ct. 2080.

In action by stockholder against directors of corporation based on alleged violation of prohibition of former section 610 of Title 18 against corporate expenditures in campaigns for federal office, material factual issue existed as to whether corporation's ad and pamphlet were nonpartisan, thus precluding summary judgment. Id.

20. Jurisdiction

United States district court had no jurisdiction to review executive decision to bring indictment against individual defendant charging violation of former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting labor unions from making political contributions, but district court would decline jurisdiction even if it was present, where exercising jurisdiction would not only frustrate will of Congress in enacting said section but would also open up a Pandora's box in connection with administration of justice and proper enforcement of criminal laws. U. S. v. Boyle, D.C.D.C. 1971, 338 F.Supp. 1025, motion denied 331 F.Supp. 1181.

21. Venue

In prosecution for knowingly causing another to accept or receive an illegal corporate campaign contribution, venue was proper in Southern District of New York, where recipient of check for illegal contribution deposited check in bank in that District, notwithstanding contention that venue was improper in that District because all defendant's conduct in caus

Note 24

ing acceptance or receipt of contribution was performed by him in Minnesota. U. S. v. Chestnut, D.C.N.Y.1975, 399 F.Supp. 1292.

22. Complaint

Defendants' motions to dismiss counts of complaint charging conspiracy to cause national bank to make illegal campaign contributions, wherein one defendant alleged that he was not an active member of the conspiracy at the time of the contributions charged and codefendant claimed undue delay in prosecution, would be denied without prejudice. U. S. v. Clifford, D.C.N.Y.1976, 409 F.Supp. 1070.

23. Grand jury proceedings

Indictment charging substantive and conspiratorial violations of former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting labor union from making political contributions was not subject to dismissal on ground of presence of an unauthorized person in grand jury room, where neither in memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion to dismiss nor at hearing on motion was any evidence produced substantiating claim. U. S. v. Boyle, D.C.D.C.1972, 338 F.Supp. 1028.

Mere allegation on part of defendant that his rights under U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5 were violated by fact that he was compelled to testify before grand jury was not a basis for obtaining dismissal of indictment charging conspiratorial and substantive violations of former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting labor unions from making political contributions. Id.

Fact that indictment charging conspiratorial and substantive violations of former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting labor unions from making political contributions was obtained without reexamination of witnesses or documents supporting an earlier and substantially similar indictment was not a basis for obtaining dismissal of indictment, where presentation of evidence to members of same grand jury which returned original indictment would not have yielded any meaningful protection to defendants and would have only served to delay orderly administration of Justice. Id.

24. Indictment

Indictment alleging contribution or expenditure from general treasury of union or corporation in connection with federal election states offense. Pipefitters Local Union No. 562 v. U. S., Mo.1972, 92 S.Ct. 2247, 407 U.S. 385, 33 L.Ed.2d 11.

Indictment charging publication by labor union with union funds of weekly periodical which, in issue of certain date contained statement by union president urging that union members vote for certain candidate for Congress, and charging distribution of the particular issue in regular course to those accustomed to receive copies of the periodical, did not allege a violation of former section 251 of this title. U. S. v. Congress of Industrial Organizations, 1948, 68 S.Ct. 1349, 335 U.S. 106, 92 L.Ed. 1849.

Indictment, charging that labor organization made expenditures in connection with special congressional election by publishing and circulating an editorial favoring one candidate and opposing the other and that president of organization consented to such expenditures, charged an offense under former section 610 of Title 18. Id.

Failure of indictment charging violation of former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting labor organizations from making contributions and expenditures to candidates for federal offices to allege that payments to political and education fund established by labor union were involuntary was not fatal, since voluntari