In 1951, the Peace Information Center (PIC) and five of its officers were indicted for willfully failing to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The PIC was founded in April 1950 by several activists, including its chairman, author W.E.B. Du Bois, to educate Americans about peace and to gain support for a ban on nuclear weapons.
Du Bois and the other officers of the PIC were concerned with the emergence of nuclear weapons following World War II, which they believed would lead to the destruction of humanity. To try to gain support for change, they disseminated the so-called “Stockholm Peace Appeal” throughout the U.S., which called for an absolute ban on atomic weapons and declared that any government that used such weapons should be charged with a crime against humanity. The appeal was widely popular and gained over 2.5 million signatures in the U.S.
The peace appeal, however, was viewed by the Department as part of a broader, foreign-directed propaganda effort during a period of heightened concern over Soviet influence. This led the DOJ to claim that the PIC was violating FARA by acting as a “publicity agent” for the Committee of the World Congress of the Defenders of Peace, the organization from which the document had originated. The DOJ then sent a letter to the PIC requesting its registration under FARA. The executive secretary of the PIC, Abbott Simon, wrote back to the DOJ, claiming that the PIC was a solely American organization responsible only to itself and therefore under no obligation to register.
The DOJ was not satisfied with this response and, again, wrote to the PIC requesting that it register without further delay. Du Bois, convinced there must be some misunderstanding, responded to the Attorney General to inquire about a meeting to discuss the matter, further reiterating Simon’s claims that the organization was not acting on behalf of any foreign principal. Du Bois’ inquiry went unanswered, and it wasn’t until weeks later that he heard that the Washington Grand Jury was investigating a possible FARA violation. Five officers of the PIC, including Du Bois, were ultimately indicted, each facing up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
The Department's case initially withstood a motion to dismiss in May 1951, and the case proceeded to trial that November. During the trial, the government argued that the foreign principal need not be aware of the agent-principal relationship to require FARA registration, as was the case with the PIC. This argument functioned under early versions of FARA, which contained much looser wording as to what qualified as an agent-principal relationship, allowing the government to better control Nazi propagandists during World War II. It wasn’t until the 1966 Amendments to FARA that the law was narrowed to require a more explicit agent-principal relationship. The government, therefore, claimed that only the PIC’s intent to disseminate information for a foreign principal needed to be proven. Still, the District Court judge dismissed the case after the close of the government’s case for failure to present sufficient evidence to sustain a criminal conviction. It is, however, important to note that the DOJ later commented that it believed this decision was flawed as the trial judge relied on opinion issues that were prior to the 1942 amendments to FARA, which altered the definition of the term ‘agent’, a change the Department argued would have better supported its claims.
Although Du Bois and the PIC were not convicted, the trial had reputational consequences for the defendants. They had been widely portrayed in the media as Soviet sympathizers and felt compelled to close the PIC just months after it began. The case illustrates how FARA investigations, even without a conviction, can impose high reputational and organizational costs. It also highlights the breadth of the statute as applied during the early Cold War period.
Special thanks to Sonia de Jong for her efforts on this Blog piece.
This article is designed to give general information on the developments covered, not to serve as legal advice related to specific situations or as a legal opinion. Counsel should be consulted for legal advice.
[View Source]