Note 24

ness would not be controlling on proof of gist of indictment that money in fund was in truth and in fact money belonging to labor union; however, issue of voluntariness, along with intention of donors as to ownership and control of fund, was relevant and material on issue of whether fund was property of union. 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.

Allegation in indictment that corporation made an "expenditure" in connection with election necessarily inferred an allegation that general corporate funds were used, and, entry of plea of not guilty, gave rise to question of fact as to source of corporate funds. U. S. v. Lewis Food Co., C.A. Cal.1966, 366 F.2d 710.

Indictment charging that defendant corporation had made unlawful expenditures in connection with election was not dismissible for failure to charge that expenditures were made from general funds of corporation contrary to wishes of an individual stockholder. Id.

An indictment against corporations for conspiracy to make unlawful campaign contributions, need not allege that offense with the particularity of an indictment directly charging it as an offense. U. S. v. U. S. Brewers' Ass'n, D.C.Pa.1916, 239 F. 163.

Indictment which alleged that United States Senator's campaign manager arranged payment by corporation of $12,000 to Senator's advertising firm in payment of one month's services to Senator's campaign was sufficient to state an offense against campaign manager for causing advertising firm to do that which, if done directly by him, would have constituted acceptance of illegal corporate campaign contribution. U. S. v. Chestnut, D.C.N.Y.1975, 394 F.Supp. 581.

Fact that indictment described an alleged "indirect payment" in 1970 from a corporation to Senator's campaign which defendant managed did not mean that indictment violated U.S.C.A.Const. Art. 1, $9, cl. 3 by using 1972 version of former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting "indirect payments" where allegations spelling out the payment were used to describe details by which defendant allegedly engaged in artifice or subterfuge to conceal receipt of illegal contribution. Id.

Fact that copy of 1972 version of former section 610 of Title 18 was attached to press release upon return of indictment in 1974 alleging 1970 violation of said section was immaterial where charg es were embraced within said section in force at time of alleged commission. Id.

Indictment charging conspiracy to violate former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting labor unions from making political contributions was not subject to dismissal on ground that it charged three distinct conspiracies, therefore making it duplicitous, where indictment charged a continuing conspiracy. U. S. v. Boyle, D.C.D.C.1972, 338 F.Supp. 1028.

Indictment charging that defendant corporation had made unlawful expenditures in connection with primary election was insufficient for failure to disclose whether expenditures violated wishes of a stockholder. U. S. v. Lewis Food Co., D.C.Cal.1964, 236 F.Supp. 849.

25. Bill of particulars

Defendant, charged with violation of former section 610 of Title 18 relating to expenditures by national bank in connection with an election, and with mis application of funds by bank officer or employee, was entitled to a bill of particulars fully and fairly advising him of

the details of the government's charges, in order that he might properly prepare whatever defense he might have under the circumstances, and in order to avoid prejudicial surprise at trial. U. S. v. Barket, D.C.Mo.1974, 380 F.Supp. 1018.

26. Double jeopardy

President of international union was not placed twice in jeopardy by reason of conviction of having consented to unlawful contribution of labor union funds to the campaigns of candidates for federal office, unlawful conversion of union funds for purpose of making such contribution, and conspiracy to commit such offenses. 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.

Fact that substantive counts were in part based on allegations underlying conspiracy charge in prosecution charging violation of former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting labor unions from making political contributions did not constitute a violation of defendants' right under U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5 against being placed in double jeopardy. U. S. v. Boyle, D.C.D.C.1972, 338 F.Supp. 1028.

27. Limitations

In prosecution of corporation for making illegal campaign contributions and of corporate officer for consenting to same, factual issues concerning various alleged payments and possible illegal transfers between corporation and officer were part of general issue to be resolved only at trial, not on motions, such as motions to dismiss supported by affidavit that checks from corporation cleared bank more than five years prior to filing of information, five years being the limitation period. U. S. v. Andreas, D.C. Minn.1974, 374 F.Supp. 402.

Where indictment charging conspiratorial and substantive violations of former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting labor unions from making political contributions indicated that last overt act occurred on or about June 10, 1969, indictment was founded well within the five-year period of limitation and was not barred. U. S. v. Boyle, D.C.D.C.1972, 338 F.Supp. 1028.

28.

Speedy trial

Fact that five-year statute of limitations applicable to defendant's alleged illegal bank loan to political organizations was not due to expire until 13 months after indictment was filed did not foreclose defendant from asserting prejudice from preindictment delay. U. S. v. Barket. C.A.Mo. 1976, 530 F.2d 189.

Where indictment which charged conspiratorial and substantive violations of former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting labor unions from making political contributions and which was returned on March 2, 1971 was superseded by a subsequent indictment which was returned on October 4, 1971, and where only delay in case was caused by necessity of getting a transcript prepared from motions. hearings for which were held in September of 1971, in order to argue supplemental motions filed with respect to new indictment, case was proceeding in an orderly manner and defendants were not denied their constitutional rights to a speedy trial and due process. U. S. v. Boyle, D.C.D.C.1972, 338 F.Supp. 1028. 29. Discovery and inspection

Government responses in prosecution of union and union officials for alleged violations of former section 610 of Title 18 to pretrial disclosure orders failed to comply with orders, in that composition of special political action fund was not disclosed, circumstances of contributions to fund were not disclosed, and alleged overt acts were not disclosed, warranting dismissal of indictment. U. S. v. Seafarers Intern. Union of North America, D.C.N.Y.1972, 343 F.Supp. 779.

Subpoena duces tecum issued against government prosecutors for production of such evidence in their possession as was being used in prosecutions of defendants for violation of former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting labor unions from making political contributions would be quashed, notwithstanding proffer of defendant establishing possibility that those who accepted or received alleged contributions were not being prosecuted, since proof of a violation by one who receives a contribution is of a wholly different character from that required to establish a violation by a donor, and defendants did not make a clear showing of relevance and materiality as required. U. S. v. Boyle, D.C.D.C.1971, 338 F.Supp. 1025, motion denied 331 F.Supp. 1181.

30. Presumptions

If "voluntary" and "involuntary" union funds are commingled and then a portion is expended for political purposes, it will be presumed that expenditures from commingled funds consisted of proportionate shares of the different types of money and it is irrevelant that the government show the source of all funds contributed to political campaigns if a substantial, or huge, portion of money in the funds was "involuntary" at the time of the contribution. 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. 31. Burden of proof

If the government proves that the source of the funds directed to a political contribution to a federal office campaign is the general union treasury, derived in part from dues and assessments, this is all that need be established on the question of "voluntary" or "involuntary" contributions by union members. 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.

In order to obtain conviction under former section 610 of Title 18, the gov ernment had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a labor organization made a contribution or expenditure in connection with the specified federal election for purpose of active electioneering and that the defendant union officer consented to the making of the contribution. Id.

The government satisfied its burden of proof that funds ultimately contributed to campaigns of federal candidates were collected "involuntarily" when it established that the union general treasury (composed predominantly of dues and assessments) was the source of the unlawful contributions to which defendant consented in his capacity as president of international union. Id.

32. Admissibility of evidence

In prosecution for knowingly causing another to accept or receive illegal corporate campaign contribution, proof of similar acts on defendant's part in accepting three other contributions was admissible as tending to show pattern of conduct on issues of knowledge and intent at time of events charged in indictment. U. S. v. Chestnut, D.C.N.Y.1975, 399 F.Supp. 1292.

33. Weight and sufficiency of evidence Evidence in prosecution for having consented to unlawful contribution of labor union funds to campaigns of candidates for federal office was sufficient to establish that president of international union knew and approved of practice of having checks on union account made out to cash, deposited in personal accounts of members and contributions then made with personal checks and that president knew and approved of efforts to conceal source of the funds. U. S. v. Boyle, 1973,

Note 37

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.

Evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction of causing another to accept or receive illegal corporate campaign contribution. U. S. v. Chestnut, D.C.N.Y.1975, 399 F.Supp. 1292.

In prosecution against union and its president and its secretary for contribution or expenditure of union funds in behalf of candidate for election to Congress, evidence was insufficient to show that expenditure was made by union on behalf of candidate in respect to purchase of gasoline and repair of automobiles. U. S. v. Construction & General Laborers Local Union No. 264, D.C.Mo. 1951, 101 F.Supp. 869.

34. Questions for jury

on

Indictment alleging violation of prohibition of former section 610 of Title 18 against corporate campaign contributions by corporation's advertisements employing rating system to show percentage of each incumbent officer's "votes cast in favor of constitutional principles" was not dismissible as matter of law ground that expenditures in question were not for an activity which constituted active electioneering, and indictment and advertisements presented jury question as to whether advertisements went beyond permissible bounds in that they were designed to influence public at large to vote for or against particular candidates. U. S. v. Lewis Food Co., C.A. Cal. 1966, 366 F.2d 710. 85. Instructions

Jury should have been instructed in prosecution of union and its officers for conspiring to violate former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting union from making contribution or expenditure in connection with federal election with respect to issue of voluntariness of payments to fund, and giving instructions permitting jury to convict without finding that donations to fund had been actual or effective dues or assessments was plain error. Pipefitters Local Union No. 562 v. U. S., Mo.1972, 92 S.Ct. 2247, 407 U.S. 385, 33 L.Ed.2d 11.

36. Findings

Where purpose of instruction that verdict form, which recited that willful violation was not contemplated, was to be used only in event jury found one or more defendants guilty of willful conspiracy and purpose of verdict form was to advise court whether labor union and official, charged with conspiracy to violate former section 610 of Title 18 prohibiting labor organizations from making contributions and expenditures to candidates for federal offices, were guilty of conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor or felony, finding that no willful violation was contemplated amounted only to a finding that conspiracy related to a misdemeanor rather than a felony and did not require acquittal. 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. 37. Disbarment or suspension from practice

Engaging in covert, deceitful activities on behalf of reelection of President of United States, designed to sow confusion among candidates of opposing party, and convictions of conspiracy and distributing political campaign material not containing name of distributing person or organization warrants suspension for two years, probation for three subsequent years and passing professional responsibility examination. Segretti v. State Bar, Cal.1976, 544 P.2d 929, 126 Cal. Rptr. 793.