CURRENT STATUS OF COMMUNIST PARTY, USA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-00915R001000230002-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: November 11, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 20, 1998
• Sequence Number: 2
• Content Type: REPORT

', '" Sanitized - Approved For R
Z8-0091.5R001000230002-3
CURRENT STATUS OF COMMUNIST PARTY$ USA
Sanitized - Approved For 915 R001000230002-3
 Sanitized - Approved For 78-00918001000230002-3
CURRENT STATUS OF COMMUNIST PARTY, USA
Legalitjr
The Communist Party is not an illegal entity, although congressional
consideration has been given to outlawing the Party from time to time. The
FBI, as principal spokesman for law enforcement in subversive matters on
a national level, has opposed outlawing the Communist Party on the basis it
would make martyrs of the Communists and! that it is easier to follow an
aboveground apparatus. Less investigative manpower is necessary, better
informant coverage is possible, and Party records and directives are more
readily available. Admittedly, this is a luxurious form of treatment indulged
in by a prosperous and contented nation where revolution is not imminent.
In the event of an "Internal Security Emergency'', statutory authority
exists for a round-up of subversives. The Federal statutes which come
closest to outlawing the Communist Party are the membership provision of
the Smith Act and the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 as amended,
better known as the McCarran Act, or Internal Security Act of 1950. Both
have been challenged before the United States Supreme Court. by the Commu-
nists as injured parties. Although convictions have been sustained in local
courts, it is debatable even in non-Communist legal circles whether they
will survive the scrutiny of the nation's highest court. Up to now, the
Government has relied primarily on that section of the Smith Act dealing
with advocating, abetting, advising or teaching the duty, necessity, or
desirability, or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United
States by force and violence.
This was first used successfully in 1941 against leaders of the Socia-
list Workers Party, a Trotskyite organization, and then against Communist
Party leaders beginning in 1948. Prosecution under this section has been
on a selective basis. During the period 194871956 many of the top Communist
Party leaders were arrested, convicted, served time, and returned to their
infamous tasks. This was true earlier of the Trotskyites, who following
imprisonment,' resumed their Party activities. Since 1950, four states have
outlawed the Communist Party, namely Indiana, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,
and Texas.
Elections
Both the Trotskyites and the Communists have run candidates for
President of the United States and other elected offices. There is no
Sanitized - Approved Q.&1LJDP78-009915RO01000230002-3 IFIMMm- "'-
 ': ? Sanitized - Approve 1
Federal statute prohibiting them from doing so. The last Communist Party
candidate for President was Earl Browder',in 1940 who received 48, 579 votes
out of 49,820, 312 votes. Since that time the Communists have either sup-
ported candidates of other parties or run for public office under non-
Communist auspices. This has been done as a matter of expediency in
order to counteract public antipathy against Communism. The Trotskyites
as late as 1956 continued to run candidates1for President, Vice-President,
and other positions under the Socialist Workers Party banner, receiving an
infinitesimal amount of votes in each instance. Twenty-six states have
statutory provisions aimed at excluding Communists and other subversives
from candidacy for public office. Some oflthem require non-Communist
affidavits of all candidates (upheld by the United States Supreme Court in
1951), and others deny the privilege of running for office to individuals
advocating the overthrow of the Government by force and violence.
Had we been asked a few years ago; we could have pointed with con-
siderable satisfaction to the vigorous prosecution and/or harassment of
subversives by law enforcement, the courts, congressional committees,
and other legally constituted bodies.
Communist Party membership dropped drastically until only an
estimated "hard core" of about '9,0"00 members remained. Since the
Party stopped issuing membership cards in 1948, it makes the compilla?
tion of accurate membership figures most difficult. Many of the most
dangerous Communist front organizations were disbanded voluntarily or
under Governmental pressure. Today, as a result of a succession of
court decisions beginning in 1956 and spearheaded by the United States
Supreme Court, the prosecution of Communists has slowed down to a
virtual halt. Without going into the merits of these decisions, which have
created mixed reactions all over the land, the following restrictions have
been imposed upon law enforcement forces; both in the fight against sub-
versives and criminal elements.
1. Throughout the history of Smith Act trials, Government
investigators, prosecutors, and witnesses have endeavored to es-
tablish the "clear and present danger" of the Communist move-
ment. This was first accomplished', successfully against the Com-
munists in 1949 when eleven of their, top national leaders were
convicted in New York C}ty. The verdict subsequently was sus-
tained by the United States Supreme) Court in 1951. It has been the
Sanitized - Approved F IA- DP78-00915R001000230002-3
 Sanitized - Approved For
1801000230002-3
N%W
practice of the Government to use key witnesses to attest to the
Marxist-Leninist character of the Communist Party, largely
through the introduction into court of so-called Marxist classics,
and to establish their use at Party meetings and training schools.
This has been augmented by additional testimony on current
activities which usually has been wanting from the standpoint of
proving actual incitement to violence'. While the Government
has been able to describe clandestine operations minutely
these are afar cry from a call to revolt. To make matters more
difficult, the Communists deliberately have been soft-pedalling
their force and violence doctrines for years, using such sweet
terminology ash "peaceful coexistence" instead. Reliance, for
the most part, upon the Marxist classics and directives relating
thereto has permitted prosecutors to':use many of the same expert
witnesses at different trials. This has enabled the Government to
expend a minimum of informants, thereby protecting its over-all
informant coverage of the subversive', movement. Penetration of
subversive organizations is a tedious' process, and the Govern-
ment obviously can ill afford to sacrifice some of its vital sources
by exposing them in open court.
While the aforementioned method of attack has succeeded in the
past, the Government, since 1957, has been confronted with a new
:Line of interpretation by the United States Supreme Court, to wit,
it is no crime to advocate and teach forcible overthrow of the U. S.
Government "as an abstract principle," so long as there is not "any
effort to instigate action" for the actual overthrow of the Govern-
ment. This decision has resulted in the freeing of many Communists
convicted and/or facing trial.
2. As a result of another United!States Supreme Court ruling in
1957, defendants now have a right to see pretrial reports made to the
FBI regarding them by prosecution witnesses. This privilege was
previously denied to them in the interest of national defense. While
this sounds innocuous, it could seriously jeopardize security unless
a- edge retains firm control of the trial and prohibits fishing expedi-
tions. Because of the clandestine nature of meetings with informants,
it is not always possible to obtain Ic overage on specific individuals in
one consolidated report with a view that some years hence it may be
necessary as evidence. As a matter of efficiency, the FBI always has
endeavored to make individual case files as complete as possible but
it is difficult to avoid overlapping reports and cross-references in
some instances.
Sanitized - Approved Fo rDP78-009158001000230002-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01000230002-3
3. The United States Supreme Court also ruled in 1957 that
witnesses before congressional committees cannot be compelled
to answer questions about Communist affiliations unless the ques-
tions are shown clearly to be pertinent to the subject matter under
investigation.
4. In April 1956, the United States Supreme Court declared
that the Smith Act superseded a Pennsylvania sedition law and
apparently all state sedition laws even though nothing in the
Federal statute so stipulated. This decision grew out of a most
interesting case. Steve Nelson, a top', Communist leader identified
with Soviet espionage activities in the past, was convicted in July
1952 and sentenced to a twenty-year prison term under a Penn-
sylvania state sedition law for his Communist activities. One year
later he was convicted under the Smith Act following federal prose-
cution and received a five-year sentence. Both cases ultimately
reached the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled
that the Smith Act superseded the state law. This decision was a
crippling blow to state prosecutions of !subversives. Although state
and local authorities generally have been content to allow the FBI
and other Government agencies to handle subversive matters, there
have been some exceptions. This verdict undoubtedly will impede
their future antisubversive activities. In October 1956, the United
States Supreme Court ordered a new trial for Steve Nelson following
a review of his Smith Act conviction. Nelson is a free man today,
active once again in the upper echelons ',of the Communist Party.
5. In June 1956 the United States Supreme Court declared that the
State Department has no legal authority !,to withhold passports from
Co:mmunis s axl oter subversives, a time-honored practice engaged
in by that ncy over the ye rs dose cooperation with the FBI and
other agencies. Orly afew ays the State Department Security
Chief asserted in a public speech that a "real danger to the security of
the United States" exists because the Government is "powerless" today
to bar travel overseas by American Communists. He pointed out that
since last June, 596 applications for passports have been received from
"persons who have records of activity in', support of the international
Communist movement."
6. Persons under arrest must be arraigned forthwith. This always
has posed a problem to law enforcement officers and the courts. Prior
to 1940 it was not uncommon to hold suspects incognito for extended
periods of time. Gradually and properly' so, the courts have forced a
Sanitized - Approved For Me ea 915R001000230002-3
 Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01000230002-3
IMLI
Awe E-1-11
reduction of the time between arrest and arraignment. However,
the pendulum has swung so far in favor of the arrested party today,
that the courts and police authorities are in a quandr y as to what
constitutes an "unnecessary delay." Holding of suspects for a few
hours or less has been deemed insufficient and dangerous criminals
set free. This is a tremendous problem to the law enforcement
world bath in the criminal and subversive fields.
7. Signed statements are being scrutinized more carefully than
ever and must clearly specify that the individual executing the state-
ment has been assured of his constitutional rights of an attorney, etc.;
and that the statement can be used against him in court. The securing
of signed statements has always been a challenge to the ingenuity of
interrogators and is becoming increasingly so.
8. The Loyality Program used to ,cover all Government employees.
Since a 1956 verdict of the United States Supreme Court, a Federal
employee cannot be fired from a nonsehsitive job merely for "sympa-
thetic association with Communists."
9. The use of wire-tapping evidence has always been prohibited
in the federal courts. Introduction of evidence from wire tapping is
permitted in certain state courts when approved by appropriate state
legislation. The United States Supreme Court has allowed the wire
tap evidence in state courts when the interception was by a state officer
duly authorized. However, it has declared such evidence inadmissable
in federal courts even though the tapping was done by state officers
without collusion on the part of federal authorities. The introduction
of evidence secured from microphones has been and continues to be a
vexing problem. The test is whether orll not the installation involves a
trespass. If so, the evidence is tainted,, How to install a productive
microphone under some conditions without a trespass has been a pro-
blem to the most skilled investigators and technicians. Oftentimes it
is essential to make illegal installationsiin the interest of national
defense. Should a valid court case arise!, at a later date without involv-
ing the use of the microphone take, the Case still would be in jeoparady
should the installation become known.
10. The matter of seizures and searches is becoming increasingly
complicated. Suffice it to say that search warrants must specify what
one expects to find in the search based upon reasonably firm informa-
tion? A law enforcement officer trying to protect his source can find
Sanitized - Approved For Release : CIA-RDP78-00915RO01000230002-3
 himself in a difficult situation. If he gives out too much detail, a
life may be in jeopardy. In cases involving espionage, it is most
difficult to set forth what you expect to find, since the evidence is
often complex, clandestine, and almost intangible in nature. It is
not like observing a man enter a building with a stolen radio and then
securing a search warrant. Searches' incidental to lawful arrest also
have been narrowed in scope over the years. The current trend of
the United States Supreme Court is to 'maintain strict standards for
the admis'ibility of evidence and therefore it is increasingly incumbent
upon law enforcement officers to observe the rules of the game. This
tightening up on the part of the courts with regard to evidence has
spread over to the military establishment where, for example, the
United States Court of Military Appeals recently ruled that evidence
uncovered by military prosecutors as ia result of an inadmiss.ble
confession can not be used against the', person who made the confession.
11. It used to be the view that evidence secured illegally by state
authorities without the participation of federal officers could be ad-
mitted in federal court proceedings. This no longer can be accepted
as a universal rule.
Whether the prosecution of the Communists and other subversives will
regain the impetus of the immediate past is', a matter of conjecture and highly
dubious unless there is a drastic change for the worse in the international
situation. Already the Communists and their fellow Marxists are beginning
to breathe easier. One nationally known Communist Party leader accepted
voluntary deportation a few years ago, re-entered this country illegally, and
is back in a leadership post. At this point,, law enforcement authorities are
seeking congressional remedies to ease their burdens, while the Communists
are attempting to regroup their forces battered by prosecutions and thoroughly
shaken by the 14rushchev revelations, Soviet anti-Semitism, the Hungarian
uprising, and "revisionism" over the issue~of national Communism. The
Communist Party, USA is still controlled by diehard Stalinists who are
working incessantly to unite the membership. Since memories often are
short-lived, and diversionary issues abound, they may well succeed in re-
building a formidable apparatus.
M
Sanitized - ApprodFor
1 - DP78-00001000230002-3
The prosecution of Communists in ademocracy is not an easy one
since they are well aware of their legal rights and use them as an effective
cloak for their insidious operations. Somel, new laws have been enacted which
are helpful in combatting subversion; the death penalty has been added for
Sanitized - Approved For RWPaW-? in-R 1p78-00915R001000230002-3
 ... Safnitizdd - Approv
RDP78-0091,RQ01000230002-3
peacetime espionage; and the statute of limitations has been extended, thereby
exposing subversive elements to prosecution for greater lengths of time than
ever before. However, the main task of law enforcement remains -?> to
balance its over-all responsibility to protect the national security with its
continuing obligation to enforce the laws, meeting, at the same time, the
most stringent requirements of the courts.
A successful fight against Communism demands constant vigilance on
the part of law enforcement forces; the closest cooperation and coordination
among agencies concerned with intelligence and security; implementation of
harassment programs; and continued spotlighting of Communist perfidy through
public hearings, the press, the pulpit, and the schoolroom.
25X1A9a
Sanitized - Approved For Re
-00915R001000230002-3