Corruption in American politics and life

by Robert C. Brooks

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE THEORY OF PARTY SUPPORT

VI
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE THEORY OF PARTY SUPPORT

A party, according to Burke, “is a body of men united, for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed.”[67] One must admit that the definition is admirable in that it lays emphasis upon the ideal end of party action,—the promotion of the national interest. It is adroit in that it evades the question so constantly thrust upon one in practical politics as to how far the real motive powers of party are class interest and personal greed and ambition. Applied to the simpler conditions of England where the single great object of political strife is the capture of a parliamentary majority, Burke’s definition may be accepted as sufficient even to-day. But it would need considerable amplification before it could be regarded as an adequate description of the vital activities of an American political party.

While the threshing out of reforms proposed in the public interest and their translation into law is with us, as in England, the most important single function of party, still it is but one among a number of functions actually performed. Our adherence to the “check and balance” system involves the possibility of clashes between the legislative, executive, and judicial powers, and these clashes would certainly be both more frequent and more violent were it not for the party control which seeks to maintain harmony among the three great departments of government. The relation between our state and city governments is also such that conflict is chronic except where a party organisation secures concerted action. In the state and city governments themselves administration is so poorly organised that authorities would constantly be falling afoul of each other were it not for the intervention of party managers who realise the necessity of maintaining harmony. Our elections involve a tremendous volume of labour most of which is performed by party workers. Not only legislative, but also frequently executive and judicial candidates must be voted for; national, state, and local offices must be filled. Back of the elections is a complex convention or primary system which must be kept in running order. Referendum and latterly initiative and recall elections require servants and machinery. The ordinary good citizen who experiences a deep feeling of personal satisfaction if he casts his vote, and who until recently considered himself little less than a civic hero if he also attended his primary, seldom has an adequate conception of the enormous volume of detailed work which a popular government such as ours involves. By those persons who are not so fortunately situated the political worker is called upon for all manner of services,—for aid in securing naturalisation papers, for assistance in obtaining employment, for advice in every emergency of life, for charitable relief. No doubt a quid pro quo is exacted in all these cases, but so long as philanthropy fails to provide other and better agencies the social value of such work must be admitted.[68] Considering these various and exacting party activities it is altogether probable, as Professor Henry Jones Ford maintains, that “the machinery of control in American government requires more people to tend and work it than all other political machinery in the rest of the civilised world.”[69]

Under our present system the performance of this tremendous volume of work is essential. In connection with it many grave abuses have developed, but in the final balance there must be some surplus of good over evil. Moreover the division of labour which places the major portion of our political work in the hands of the much maligned politician is at bottom economic. By so doing we enable our “good” citizen to devote a larger share of attention to his business, his family, and the other more immediate affairs of life. No doubt he has taken too great an advantage of this opportunity, and thereby enabled the political class to run things with a high hand. The future of democracy in America will depend largely upon the extent of the activity and intelligence manifested by our citizens. But at the very best the great mass can give only a limited portion of its time to public affairs. Too much politics and too little business, as in South America, is also bad.

So far as can be foreseen at present, therefore, the political worker and party machinery bid fair to remain functional and efficient in America for an indefinite period. Reforms harmonising and simplifying the departments and spheres of government may reduce to some extent the volume of our necessary political work. On the other hand our growth in population and the increase of governmental functions tend constantly to increase it. Whatever the future may bring forth present conditions clearly require the co-operation of strong parties with a complex governmental organisation. “In America,” wrote Mr. Bryce, “the government goes for less than in Europe, the parties count for more. The great moving forces are the parties.” Students of political science generally have recognised that parties constitute an integral and very vital part of our political system. It would perhaps not be putting it too strongly to maintain that our government is divided into what may be called an “official” part, consisting of the legally constituted political structure and actual office holders, and an “unofficial” part, consisting of the party organisations and their workers. As things are now the co-operation of the two is absolutely essential to efficiency. Nothing is so helpless or so certain to disappear promptly from the political arena as an “official” group which has lost the support of its complementary “unofficial” organisation.

Now while the utility and necessity of co-operation between official and unofficial political forces is generally recognised by careful students we have, singularly enough, provided regular and legitimate means of subsistence only for the former, leaving the latter to shift for itself as best it may. Our unofficial political forces, i.e., the party organisations and their workers, are, as we have seen, burdened with tasks of enormous magnitude. Under simpler conditions Burke’s “body of men joined together for the purpose of promoting the national interest upon some particular principle” might indeed “by their joint endeavour” alone succeed in performing this work in a patriotic and disinterested spirit. With the growth of American population and the development of our very complex government, however, this became impossible. Steady professional work by a large body of men is demanded under present conditions. Much of this work the politician knows to be necessary and useful even if the full measure of its social utility seldom dawns upon him. Naturally he thinks the labourer worthy of his hire, or, at any rate, he is keenly conscious of his own bread and butter necessities. No regular income being provided for the politician as such, he proceeds to collect it in various ways, some of them perfectly open and even praiseworthy, as in the case of campaign contributions made by disinterested persons, and others distinctly furtive or even corrupt and criminal. Under the old régime if his party was successful at the polls there was, of course, the possibility of a job,—that is of a translation from the unofficial to the official governmental sphere. Even in the hey-day of the spoils system, however, there were never jobs enough to supply the faithful and those who received appointments were consequently “assessed” large sums to pay for the labours of their less fortunate companions in arms. And the politicians of the beaten party went bare although their social service in arousing the people on the issues of the campaign was probably as valuable in proportion to their numbers as that rendered by the workers of the victorious party. Under the circumstances it was inevitable that the party worker in office would pay more attention to the requirements of the machine than to his public duties, and the evils thus occasioned naturally gave rise to civil service reform. Wherever it has been applied the merit system has done much to discourage the collection of party revenues from office holders. As sources of income there remain, however, the manifold possibilities of the sale of political influence ranging all the way from permission to violate a municipal ordinance up to the sale of a franchise or the grant of legislative favours to large private interests. Many of the forms of corruption dealt with in the preceding studies are cases in point.

Whatever means may be employed to collect funds the total cost of party maintenance in the United States is extremely heavy. Referring to this frequently unreckoned burden, Professor Ford remarks: “It is a fond delusion of the people that our republican form of government is less expensive than the monarchical forms which obtain in Europe. The truth is that ours is the costliest government in the world.”[70] Turn the matter about as one will it is inevitable that these costs of parties must be paid. Our present method of paying them is indirect, furtive, fraught with grave moral consequences, and it is tremendously extravagant. We do not perceive the latter point clearly because we seldom get an insight into the total amount demanded or into the many and devious ways by which it is collected. What is exacted of us in the final analysis is not to be reckoned in money alone but also in bad and inefficient government with all the harm that it entails upon business, health, security, and morality. And we must continue to pay in our present wasteful and foolish manner until we devise a better method or make some arrangement to dispense largely with the services of party organizations.

What the ultimate lines of the solution may be it is too early to inquire. It is only very recently that we have become aware of the existence and magnitude of the problem. Indeed in its present form the problem is itself of recent origin. Not until the presidential campaign in 1876 was money used on a scale which could be described as lavish. The interest which has been shown recently in campaign contributions is gratifying evidence that our former neglect of the sources of party support is giving way to lively interest. Such contributions, however, represent a part only of the total expenses of political management. Party organisations must be kept up permanently and politicians, in or out of office, have a large amount of party work to perform between elections. As a matter of fact campaign funds may be regarded as a form of provision for the surplus demand occasioned by the election time necessity of running the machine at full blast with a large number of supernumerary workers under employment. The size of the total sums contributed at such periods, the influences behind some of the contributions, and the new interest of the public in these influences make it desirable, however, to consider the matter as a single but very important section of the broader subject of party support in general.

Admitting the necessity and utility under present conditions of party organisation and party work it is certainly not unreasonable to suggest that part of the burden of campaign management should be borne by the state. In his message at the beginning of the first session of the Sixtieth Congress, December, 1907, President Roosevelt said on this subject:

“The need for collecting large campaign funds would vanish if Congress provided an appropriation for the proper and legitimate expenses of each of the great national parties, an appropriation ample enough to meet the necessity for thorough organisation and machinery, which requires a large expenditure of money. Then the stipulation should be made that no party receiving campaign funds from the Treasury should accept more than a fixed amount from any individual subscriber or donor; and the necessary publicity for receipts and expenditures could without difficulty be provided.”

It was frankly admitted that this proposal was “very radical” and that until the people had time to familiarise themselves with it they would not be willing to consider its adoption. Indeed popular feeling nowadays, whether rightly or wrongly, is strongly averse to the granting of aid to party organisations and is manifestly bent on cutting off some of their sources of supply rather than on providing others. Many objections may be made to President Roosevelt’s proposal, some of them technical in character, others on the basis of principle. “Legitimate expenses” might be hard to define, but the attempt has been made already by several state legislatures.[71] Congress would either have to vote the same sum to each of the two principal parties, or else devise some scheme of pro rata distribution. How minor political parties would fare under the former arrangement is not discussed. Colorado met this question in 1909, by providing that the state should pay twenty-five cents for each vote cast at the preceding contest for governor. The money is distributed to the state party chairmen in proportion to the votes cast by each party. One-half of it must be handed over to the county chairmen in proportion to the number of votes cast in each county. Other contributions to campaign funds are prohibited, except from candidates, who, however, may not give sums in excess of twenty-five per cent of their first year’s salary. What the practical outcome of the plan may be it is, of course, impossible to predict. Just how a new minor party is to get itself started, apart from the limited contributions of its candidates, does not appear. Objection might also be raised to this pro rata arrangement on the ground that it bases the financial support of parties almost entirely upon their showing at the preceding election. So far as the strength of parties is determined by their money income the effect of the law will manifestly be to maintain the status quo ante. Theoretically party support ought to depend on the present actual standing of a party, that is, the comparative value to the state of its policies at the election for which its expenses are to be paid. Of course no agreement is possible as to just what this standing is in given cases. None the less it would seem clear that there might be a wide divergence between the relative showing made by a party at the polls two or more years ago and its present deserts. Possibly also a system of voluntary giving with restrictions of corporate contributions and other abuses might more correctly measure the current merit of parties than the pro rata state appropriation system.

The Colorado plan, with the exception of the limited contributions it permits from candidates, places the burden of election expenses entirely upon the state, and therefore prohibits contributions both from corporations and individuals. President Roosevelt’s suggestion is not so radical, involving as it clearly did the raising of funds by contributions in addition to the proposed congressional appropriations. If, however, the latter were made sufficient to provide for the “proper and legitimate expenses of each of the great national parties,” one might inquire for what other purposes the campaign managers would need money. Waiving this question, a mixed system of state subsidies and private contributions has certain distinct advantages. There is considerable force in President Roosevelt’s argument that publicity and the restriction of large contributions could be more easily obtained under a plan combining the two kinds of support. Public appropriations for campaign purposes would place the state in a stronger position logically to exercise supervision over the whole process of gathering and spending money for political purposes. However, it remains to be demonstrated that publicity and the restriction of objectionable contributions cannot be secured without the payment of party subsidies. Evidently, also, there would be difficulties in connection with the supervision of party activities necessary to determine whether or not the proposed congressional appropriations should be granted. Democratic campaign managers would certainly feel that no Republican congress could deal fairly with them in such matters, although a bi-partisan supervisory board appointed by Congress might escape this suspicion.

Any appropriation of state funds for campaign purposes would also be objected to on grounds of principle. It is not considered a misfortune, for example, that a philanthropic, educational, or religious association must appeal to the public for contributions. On the contrary this very necessity forces the managers of such organisations to keep the service of the public constantly in view. Fully endowed charities, schools, and churches, on the other hand, have a notorious tendency to develop the dry rot or to degenerate into positive nuisances. It is possible that even if our two great parties were guaranteed support from state funds the keen rivalry between them might preserve them from deterioration. Still the logic of events may at any time demand the disbandment of a given political party. If at such a juncture it were assured a large subsidy, equal to or approximating that of the majority party, it might outlive its usefulness indefinitely, maintaining its organisation and a numerous body of adherents simply in order to devour the congressional appropriation provided for its useless campaign work.

There is one form of campaign expenditure, however, which the state may well assume and seek to extend, namely that incurred for performing any service offered equally to all parties. Already public provision is made for the rent of polling places, the salaries of election officials, the printing of ballots, and some other expenditures of a similar character. Legal regulation of the primary and convention system, such as has been undertaken on a large scale within the last decade, offers opportunities for the payment of certain preliminary expenses in the same way. In connection with its referendum elections Oregon has begun to print and distribute at public expense documents containing the substance of the laws to be voted on, supplemented by brief arguments drawn up by adherents of both sides.[72] So far as this principle can be extended the real need for campaign contributions from private citizens or corporations will be reduced. Thus without going the length of placing the whole burden of campaign expenditures upon the state, experimentation may well be undertaken with various combinations of the mixed system. If found advisable the relative amount of the state’s contribution may then be increased from time to time.

While the work of parties at the present time must be conceded to be essential and on the whole useful, the argument for their entire support by the state is still far from being made out. There is, as we have seen, a certain virtue in the very necessity under which parties labour of applying to the people for contributions. Normally it should have the effect of keeping the parties closer in interest to the people. It is highly improbable that the question of campaign funds would ever have been raised in American politics if party contributions were habitually made by a large number of persons each giving a relatively small amount. If in addition the donors were inspired by patriotic motives only and never sought to procure corrupt favours through their contributions such a system would be well nigh ideal. With all the abuses that have sprung up in this connection it is probably true that by far the larger number of the contributors to our campaign funds have been of the better type just described, although, of course, the same judgment would hardly be expressed with regard to the greater portion of the total amounts contributed. Under a system of small contributions from a large number of people it would matter little even if some of the contributors were not wholly disinterested. The relatively small proportion of the total sum represented by any individual subscription would make it absurd for the donor to claim corrupt favours of importance. It is not so much the campaign contribution itself that has fallen into disrepute among us as the secrecy involving the whole subject and the belief that large corporate contributions have been repaid by corrupt favours. Short of public subsidies, therefore, most of the advocates of reform in this field content themselves with the demand for publicity and certain restrictions as to the collection and expenditure of campaign funds.

The movement for publicity was preceded by much vigorous legislation against the bribery of voters and other abuses at the ballot-box, but as these subjects have been abundantly discussed elsewhere they need only incidental mention here. New York led in the movement for publicity proper with a law passed in 1890 (ch. 94), requiring candidates to file statements of their expenditures. This act was very ineffective, no publicity being required for the expenses of election committees. Most of the laws subsequently passed have brought campaign committees as well as candidates specifically under regulation.[73] By the end of 1908, more than twenty states altogether had taken some action looking toward the publicity of expenditures. The earlier laws of this character were very loosely drawn. In many cases they simply required “statements,” and the results obtained were distinguished chiefly by gross inadequacy and heterogeneity. Later statutes and amendments, however, have fixed the form of reports precisely, itemising them in considerable detail. Wisconsin, for example, furnishes blanks especially prepared for this purpose. Vouchers for all sums exceeding five or ten dollars are required in a number of states. Publicity of receipts is not so commonly prescribed as publicity of expenditures. Reports of contributions were first required by Colorado and Michigan in 1891, followed by Massachusetts in 1892, California in 1894, Arizona in 1895, Ohio in 1896. Repeals of the laws first passed in Ohio and Michigan indicate that they were somewhat ahead of public sentiment at the time, although they would hardly be so regarded now. In this connection the New York law of 1906 (ch. 502), was an event of first class importance. It compels political committees to file detailed statements of receipts as well as expenditures, and provides for judicial investigation to enforce correct statements. The great weight of the name of the Empire State is thus placed squarely behind the demand for real publicity of receipts.[74] Under this act, voluntarily accepted by the national chairmen in 1908, publicity was given to the finances of a presidential campaign for the first time in the history of the country.

In the national field the nearest approach to legislation prescribing publicity for campaign contributions was made by a bill (H. R. 20112) introduced into the House of Representatives in 1908. Briefly this bill covered both expenditures and contributions of the national and the congressional campaign committees of all parties, and of “all committees, associations, or organisations which shall in two or more states influence the result or attempt to influence the result of an election at which Representatives in Congress are to be elected.” Treasurers of such committees were required to file itemised detailed statements with the Clerk of the House of Representatives “not more than fifteen days and not less than ten days before an election,” and also final reports within thirty days after such elections. These statements were to include the names and addresses of contributors of $100 or more, the total of contributions under $100, disbursements exceeding $10 in detail, and the total of disbursements of less amount. The bill also contained provisions, which will be referred to later, designed to cover the use of money by persons or associations other than those mentioned above. Unfortunately a provision was tacked on to the foregoing raising the question of the restriction of colored voting in the South and hinting at a reapportionment of congressional representation under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. As a consequence an embittered opposition was made by the Democrats who charged that the latter provision was deliberately introduced in bad faith with the intention of making the passage of the bill impossible. In the House it was carried by a solid Republican vote of 161 in its favour to 126 Democratic votes in opposition, but was allowed to expire in the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections for fear that it would become the object of a Democratic filibuster.

Whatever may be the merits of the proposal to readjust congressional representation it is clearly a question which is logically separable from that of campaign contributions. If this separation is effected there would seem to be reason to hope that a publicity bill similar in its main outlines to that of 1908 can pass Congress. While a platform plank of this sort was voted down in the Republican National Convention of that year, Mr. Taft in his speech of acceptance said:—

“If I am elected President I shall urge upon Congress, with every hope of success, that a law be passed requiring a filing in a Federal office of a statement of the contributions received by committees and candidates in elections for members of Congress, and in such other elections as are constitutionally within the control of Congress.”[75]

The manœuvring for position between the parties in 1908 which resulted in the voluntary acceptance by each of high standards of publicity is too fresh in the public mind to require rehearsal here. For the first time in the history of presidential elections some definite information was made available regarding campaign finances. The Republican National Committee reported contributions of $1,035,368.27. This sum, however, does not include $620,150 collected in the several states by the finance committees of the Republican National Committee and turned over by them to their respective state committees. The Democratic National Committee reported contributions amounting to $620,644.77. The list of contributors to the Republican National Fund contained 12,330 names.[76] The Democratic National Committee filed a “list of over 25,000 names representing over 100,000 contributors who contributed through newspapers, clubs, solicitors, and other organisations, whose names are on file in the office of the chairman of the Democratic National Committee at Buffalo.”[77]

On many points, unfortunately, the two reports, while definite to a degree hitherto unknown, are not strictly comparable. Some species of “uniform accounting” applicable to this subject is manifestly necessary before any detailed investigation can be undertaken. One big fact stands out with sufficient clearness, however, namely that the national campaign of 1908 was waged at a money cost far below that of the three preceding campaigns.

Basing his estimate upon what is said to have been spent in 1896, 1900, and 1904, Mr. F. A. Ogg placed the total cost of a presidential election to both parties, including the state and local contests occurring at the same time, at $15,000,000.[78] One-third to one-half of this enormous sum, in his opinion, must be attributed to the presidential campaign proper. Compared with this estimate of from five to seven and a half millions the relatively modest total of something more than two and a quarter millions shown by the figures of 1908 must be counted a strong argument in favour of publicity.

The most important single issue raised by the policies of the two parties during the last presidential campaign was that of publicity before or after election. Early in the campaign the Democratic National Committee decided to publish on or before October 15th all individual contributions in excess of $100; contributions received subsequent to that date to be published on the day of their receipt. Following the principle of the New York law both parties made post-election statements. It is manifest that complete statements of expenditures, or for that matter of contributions as well, can be made only after election. Every thorough provision for publicity must, therefore, require post-election reports. Shall preliminary statements also be required? As against the latter it is urged that contributors whose motives are of the highest character will be deterred by the fear of savage partisan criticism. If publicity is delayed until after the election campaign bitterness will have subsided and a juster view of the whole situation will be possible. In favour of publicity before the election it is said that two main ends are aimed at by all legislation of this sort;—first to prevent the collection and expenditure of enormous sums for the bribery of voters and other corrupt purposes, and, second, by revealing the source of campaign funds to make it difficult or impossible for the victorious party to carry out corrupt bargains into which it may have entered in order to obtain large contributions. Publicity after the election will, indeed, serve the second of these ends, but publicity before would be much more effective in preventing corrupt collection and expenditure of funds. Moreover it might prevent the victory of the party pursuing such a policy and thus, by keeping it out of power, render it incapable of paying by governmental favour for its contributions.

In attempting to arrive at a conclusion on this issue it is difficult to assign it such practical importance as it received during the campaign of 1908. Publicity after election simply delays the time of exposure. The knowledge that it is bound to come must exert a very powerful influence over intending contributors. That this was the case in 1908 is pretty convincingly demonstrated by a comparison of the figures of that year with the figures for earlier presidential campaigns. It is certain that publicity pure and simple, whether before or after election, will seldom show on the face of the returns any facts seriously reflecting upon party integrity. If there is to be difficulty in administering laws of this character it will come in the way of getting at real, complete statements, going back of the names and figures on the return if necessary. On the other hand it is not altogether to be deplored that before election publicity may result in rather bitter criticism of some contributors. Gifts in general, as we have already noted,[79] stand in especial need of criticism, and this principle applies with maximum force to campaign gifts. Designed as they are to affect public policy a plea for privacy cannot be set up on their behalf. If the criticism of contributors should go to extremes it will hurt the party making it more than the individuals assailed. Contributors who know their own motives to be honourable ought not to allow themselves to be deterred by baseless clamour. If, however, such criticism is just, both the individual making, and the party receiving the suspicious contribution deserve to suffer. By deterring other contributions of a similar questionable character a distinct public service will be rendered by such ante-election criticism. Knowledge of the sources of the financial support of a party is certainly not the only nor the best basis to be employed by an elector in determining the way he shall cast his vote, but under present conditions it is certainly a matter which he is entitled to take into consideration. While admitting, therefore, that there is room for honest difference of opinion on the question of publicity before or after election, the weight of the argument would seem to fall distinctly in favour of the former. It is sincerely to be regretted that the question became in a sense a matter of party record in 1908. Going back to the congressional bill of the same year, however, it is worth noting that the Republican majority in the House once placed itself solidly and squarely on record in favour of publicity before the election. Looking at the matter solely from the lower standpoint of expediency that party is now in a most enviable position to revert to its earlier attitude and, by enacting the principle of ante-election publicity into law, to secure for itself the credit of a popular reform. This would place the two parties on a uniform legal basis for the future, and make it impossible for the Democrats to assume voluntarily a higher standard regarding publicity which they could then use as a campaign argument against the Republicans.[80]

There is one form of publicity before election, if it may be considered such, which while not a matter of public discussion would seem advisable in any event. Laws should require that all candidates must be furnished with daily accounts of the financial operations both as to receipts and expenditures of campaign committees and others acting in their interest. Even under the old régime of secrecy scandalous exposures sometimes occurred. Confronted by such untoward circumstances partisans always urged in defence that the candidate himself was the soul of honesty and that he was as ignorant as a new-born babe of the dirty work carried on by a handful of irresponsible and corrupt friends. No doubt there have been many cases where the moral insulation thus alleged really existed. On the other hand some of these pleas in defence and extenuation were abject farces. They should be prevented once for all by providing that every candidate must be fully and promptly informed regarding the financial conditions of his campaign. Indeed he is entitled to this information in advance of the public, for his personal honour is at stake. If, then, he should disapprove of the measures employed in his behalf he can take such action as may seem desirable to clear his reputation. If, on the other hand, he is willing that dubious methods should be resorted to, let him not attempt to play upon the credulity of the public in case of exposure.[81] It is notorious that the last refuge of a discredited machine is the nomination of a man whose personal honesty is above suspicion, and his election by every possible crooked device. While the campaign is going on the “irreproachable candidate” is kept carefully in ignorance of the methods of his more “practical” managers. After the election he may be told of them if it is necessary to force his compliance to corrupt bargains made in his behalf. Pre-election campaign publicity for the particular information of candidates ought to make it more difficult for a machine in extremis to save itself by the nomination of “irreproachables.” Or if they are nominated they will at least be able to insist on the “irreproachable” conduct of their campaign. In any event such publicity would provide the voters with candidates of whom it might be assumed in every case that they knew exactly what sort of methods were being used to secure their election.

The question of campaign publicity involves, of course, the further question as to what organisations and officials shall make reports of contributions and expenditures. In a general way this duty, which originally was laid only upon candidates has been extended sweepingly to party committees and similar bodies. The language of the congressional bill referred to above is extremely broad, but it does not settle all the questions that may arise on this point. Associations may be formed which without nominating candidates of their own or undertaking other definitely partisan activities may nevertheless profoundly affect the outcome of an election. A curious illustration of this point may be found in the Missouri law of 1907,[82] which provided that civic leagues making reports on the fitness of candidates for public office must also publish the basis of their information and file statements of their expenses. It is manifest that leagues of this character, which seldom if ever nominate candidates of their own, may nevertheless come under the control of contributing interests and use their considerable influence to affect elections corruptly. Other illustrations are supplied by large organisations devoted to the propaganda of a given cause. In a tariff campaign, for example, both free trade and protectionist leagues might raise and expend enormous sums in a way that would materially affect the result at the polls. There is at least the possibility of evasion and trouble in this direction, mitigated, however, by the fact that in general the work of propagandist leagues will be educational and free from grosser offences such as bribery of voters. Finally there is the possibility of large direct individual expenditures by warm friends or near relatives in favour of a given candidacy. This was met in the congressional bill by requiring reports of expenditures by persons other than members of campaign committees in excess of $50, not, however, including travelling expenses or postage, telegraph, and telephone charges.[83] Legislation compelling all contributors to make their contributions through campaign committees,[84] or forbidding the direct use of money by individuals may suffice to overcome this difficulty if it should ever become threatening.

Publicity laws have done something to fix responsibility for collections by specifying the nature of organisations which are compelled to report and further by requiring the appointment of certain financial officials in such organisations. It would seem difficult to go further in a legal way. There is, however, a manifest impropriety in the appointment of persons to do this work who through the exercise of their own official power or because of knowledge gained while in office could use threats express or implied in approaching prospective contributors. At its worst this amounts to a subtle sort of corrupt blackmail which is only slightly veiled; at its best it may be condoned as a political device formerly considered clever but now so generally reprobated as to be dangerous. The general recognition of the purpose of such appointments should be sufficient to prevent the naming as party collectors of officials who come, have come, or are to come into contact with the business world through the exercise of the taxing or supervisory powers of government.

Closely associated with the subject of publicity is the question of the prohibition or limitation of contributions from various sources. Absolute prohibition, of course, could come only as a corollary to a system of government appropriations for campaign expenses. Under a mixed system of support or with wholly voluntary support, prohibition or limitation of certain kinds of contributions may be attempted by law. Of course there is a possibility that with publicity fully secured obnoxious contributions may become, through fear of criticism, extremely rare. Quite a number of states, however, have deemed it necessary to supplement their publicity acts with acts prohibiting or restricting certain kinds of contributions.

The most common objects of such prohibitions are, of course, the corporations. As early as 1894, Mr. Elihu Root, speaking in the New York Constitutional Convention in favour of an amendment prohibiting contributions from such sources, said:—“It strikes at a constantly growing evil which has done more to shake the confidence of the plain people of small means of this country in our political institutions than any other practice which has ever obtained since the foundation of our government.” Even now that the turning point has been passed and we are clearly on the way to better things there are few students of our public life who would dissent from Mr. Root’s judgment of the seriousness of the question raised by corporate contributions to campaign funds. Missouri, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Florida, were pioneers in acting on this conviction, all four having passed laws in 1897 absolutely forbidding such gifts.[85] Several states followed in a desultory fashion until in 1907 a sudden burst of legislative activity occurred as a result of the New York insurance revelations. In that one year no fewer than eleven states passed laws forbidding life insurance companies to contribute, and five other states forbade all corporations of whatever sort to make contributions to campaign funds.

It is frequently objected to laws of this character that they are worthless because they can readily be evaded. A corporation may secretly direct one of its officials to make a large contribution with the understanding that the money is to be returned to him later, concealed, it may be, in the price paid for some property which he sells the corporation. No doubt evasion of this sort is possible, but it will hardly become common because it involves the collusion of so many men not only in the management of the corporation but also in the party management, all of whom will fully understand the criminal nature of the transaction. On the corporation side, moreover, the act remains a gift, and withal a gift of a much more hazardous nature and one much less certain to bring returns than such gifts are reputed to have been in the past. Now even under the most favourable circumstances giving, whether by corporations or by individuals, is a somewhat painful process. The absence of souls in the case of the former does not seem to make their feeling of sacrifice any the less keen. It is highly improbable, therefore, that in addition to this natural obstacle and other disadvantages corporations are likely to run the risks of penal law frequently in order that they may bestow their surplus wealth upon party organisations.

Of course there are corporations so largely owned by individuals and so thoroughly identified with the latter that a contribution from them may seem to amount to the same thing as a contribution from the corporation. Technically, however, the money must be offered as a personal gift, and party managers might defend themselves on this score in case the contributor afterwards demanded a corrupt favour in the interest of his corporation. If the public remains suspicious of such large personal contributions by corporate managers the further step may be taken of fixing by law the maximum amount to be contributed by any individual.

Considering the special disabilities which have been laid upon corporations in the matter of campaign contributions it is indeed remarkable that similar restrictions have not been suggested for other associations. Either by gradually extending this policy or by a single sweeping measure the right of contribution may finally be brought to as purely individual a basis as the right of suffrage itself. Some partnerships, particularly in manufacturing and the express business, have been notorious seekers after special privileges, but not being corporations there is nothing to prevent them from contributing largely to campaign funds. Labour unions might be developed into very heavy contributors to campaign funds. Although in the latter case the contributions would come from a great number of individuals giving relatively small amounts each, yet the machinery of organisation and the emulation it could excite among the members might prove potent in producing very large sums in the aggregate. The same considerations apply to clubs, whether purely social or propagandist in character, which can contribute great sums without revealing the identity of large donors among their members,—except perhaps privately to the financial officers of a campaign committee. If publicity reveals any such abuses legislation to correct them along the same lines as our present corporate prohibitions may prove desirable.

Next to contributions by corporations political contributions from candidates would seem to stand most in need of restriction. The English Corrupt and Illegal Practice Prevention Act is very explicit and drastic on this subject. It even goes to the length of forbidding contributions for charitable purposes subsequent to the public announcement of the candidate’s intention to stand for a borough. Our own legislation, however, has been very fragmentary except in so far as candidates were affected by the general publicity requirements. By an act which went into effect, August, 1892, Massachusetts prohibited political committees from soliciting contributions from candidates who, however, might “make a voluntary payment of money—for the promotion of the principles of the party which the committee represents, and for the general purposes of the committee.” While doubtless excellent as a statement of ideal relations it is questionable whether this enactment materially increased the obstacles intervening between campaign committees and candidates’ pocketbooks. At least the legislature of the same state found it necessary in 1908 to provide that political committees should not solicit money from a candidate as a prerequisite to giving him his nomination papers.[86] A new departure was made by the Ohio law of 1896, known as the Garfield Act,[87] which endeavoured to grade candidates’ expenses according to the number of votes cast, limiting them to $100 for five thousand voters or less, and providing that they should not exceed $650 in any case.[88] In case of violation the office of a successful candidate could be declared vacant at any time during his term. California, Missouri, Montana, Minnesota, and New York, have also attempted the limitation of candidates’ contributions or expenditures.[89] In 1895, Connecticut and New York forbade contributions by candidates except to authorised committees or party agents.[90] California, in 1907, adopted the rather doubtful expedient of limiting contributions from candidates according to the length of term and salary of the office for which they are contesting.[91] Perhaps the most significant step that has been taken in this direction was the action of New York which in 1906 prohibited contributions from candidates for judicial offices.[92]

With these exceptions contributions by candidates are in general free from legal regulation. There have been comparatively few great exposures to awaken the public conscience to the abuses that have grown up in this connection, but as to the widespread and extremely scandalous nature of these abuses no one who is in the least familiar with practical politics can have the slightest doubt. Broadly considered any large contribution by a candidate toward his own election is manifestly indelicate, not to say frankly improper. Custom has rendered us so familiar with this practice, however, that we are inclined to accept it as a matter of course. There is a certain gambling spirit inherent in politics which is profoundly potent for evil. Primarily this is due, of course, to the inevitable uncertainties of campaigning. No single factor contributes to it more largely than the habit of “assessing” candidates for office. Honest and able men are frequently repelled from politics when they encounter this system. Some of them may hesitate to make the material sacrifices involved and are consequently deemed miserly by the politicians, although it is not the amount of money demanded but rather the uses to which these men know the money will be put that leads them to withdraw. It is not too much to maintain that the conditions now existing in many places are worse than the property qualifications once required by law to make one eligible to hold office. Our present “voluntary” contribution system, rendered practically obligatory by party authorities, is more burdensome on the candidate than a property qualification because it requires him not only to have property but also to sacrifice a considerable part of it to obtain office or the chance of office. The old property qualifications were really lighter and more democratic since they merely required prospective office holders to own so much, and all who possessed more than this fixed sum were eligible equally. The existing system which allows voluntary contributions by candidates unlimited as to amount is equivalent to a property qualification interpreted in the light of the prospective generosity of the candidate. Party managers are continually under temptation to name the man who has the more money and can be expected to make the larger contribution. Of course this does not mean that the man with the biggest “bar’l” is always nominated. Other qualifications such as the man’s education, character, and equipment for campaigning, must be taken into account as well as his ability and inclination to pay. Or if one candidate is placed on the ticket solely because of his liberality the general average must be raised by a larger admixture of brains and character on the part of his running mates. So long as candidates’ contributions are unlimited as to amount we are, nevertheless, openly tolerating conditions which give the maximum effect to wealth as a qualification for public office. True we wish to encourage our men of wealth to go into politics, but we desire them to do so on the basis of their brains and character, not on the basis of their dollars. Even without the use of money in their own interest they enjoy a tremendous advantage for candidacy in their leisure and freedom from material cares. On the other hand the multi-millionaire backed almost solely by his own wealth and unlimited as to the amount he can spend on his campaigning has already caused considerable annoyance in our political life and is likely to become an unmitigated nuisance if checks are not applied betimes. Although cases of this sort are relatively infrequent as yet they are likely to occur more commonly in the future. Business prizes have been so large until recently that they have absorbed the attention of most of our men of wealth. To our captains of industry the money rewards of an office were as nothing, and the honour it conferred added little to their importance. Washington’s recently acquired prominence as a winter residence for wealthy families may appear to be nothing more than a whim of gilded society, but the relationships thus established are certain to stimulate political ambitions in new quarters. With increasing power and social prestige attached to office,[93] more owners of great fortunes are likely to enter politics in the future. In general we have every reason to rejoice that this is the case, but we should also endeavour to adjust the terms of competition so that no undue political weight shall be given to the brute force of millions.

Underlying the system of contributions by candidates is the uncritical view that the latter should pay largely because they are to enjoy personally the honours and emoluments of office. Nominees, at least successful nominees, are deemed to be the special favourites of the party, and hence morally obligated to contribute generously to its support. Little consideration is given by those holding such views to the tremendous tax laid upon the vitality of candidates by the strenuous modern methods of campaigning, certainly a burden large enough in most cases to justify their exemption from heavy financial contributions in addition. But there are other and more serious logical defects in the theory justifying such impositions upon candidates. Normally, of course, assessments of this character must be recouped out of the earnings of the office, although it is said sometimes to happen that the sum demanded for campaign expenses is larger than the salary for the entire term of occupancy. One of our states, as we have seen, attempts to limit candidates’ contributions to a certain ratio of official earnings.[94] The clear implication of all this is that the salary of office is considered to represent first, a payment for the public services rendered by the office holder, and second, a surplus over the preceding which should be devoted to campaign expenses. If we accept this view we virtually accept the principle of the payment of campaign expenses in part at least by the state. One who repudiated this principle might therefore consistently demand the reduction of all official salaries by the amount of the campaign surplus which they contain over and above the value of services actually rendered by incumbents. As a matter of fact such a reduction would be most unfortunate, the truth being, as we have already had occasion to note, that most official salaries in the United States are too low. And, finally, a consistent believer in the principle of the payment of campaign contributions by the state might object to its realisation through the underhanded and coercive method of assessments levied upon candidates. Some perfectly frank and legal method of administering the subsidy would be far preferable.

Both in practice and theory, therefore, grave objections may be urged against a laisser faire policy in regard to campaign contributions by candidates. Effective publicity may possibly suffice to bring the abuses which have developed in this connection within bounds. The existing system, however, is old, widespread, and deeply entrenched. Public sentiment against it is far from being so strong as the facts warrant. Particularly significant in this connection is the recent action of New York in prohibiting contributions from judicial candidates. Doubtless the reason for this special limitation was the peculiar sanctity and impartiality which we associate with the functions of the judiciary. Yet in ideal at least these high qualities should attach to other public offices. So far, therefore, as the sanctity and impartiality of public office in general can be cultivated by prohibiting or limiting campaign contributions we should apply the reform to the legislative and administrative branches of government as well as to the judiciary.

It is worth noting that complete prohibition of such contributions, as in the New York instance, will probably involve the limitation of contributions by others than candidates. A judicial or other nominee prohibited by law from using money on his own behalf might, for example, knowingly or unknowingly, owe his election largely to a few rich supporters who perhaps would not hesitate at some later time to try to use the influence which they had thus obtained. Indeed it is one of the redeeming features of the present system that men of ample means have sometimes bought independence in office by financing their own campaigns. If, therefore, it should prove desirable to restrict candidates’ contributions in the future, care should also be taken to limit the contributions of third parties. Otherwise the latter, by assuming the financial burden taken from the shoulders of nominees might attempt to purchase political influence on which they could realise after those whom they assisted had obtained office.

While the foregoing argument has been directed chiefly to the case of candidates for elective office it is also applicable in some particulars to the campaign contributions of officials under civil service rules. Usually efforts are made with a considerable degree of success to protect the latter from the assessment system. The old abuse of extortion by officials of higher rank is in a fair way to be obliterated, although sporadic cases of this sort still occur even in the federal service. Unfortunately it is easy to appoint collectors who themselves hold no office under civil service rules, but whose intimate personal relations with high officials are widely known to subordinates. Civil service employees of higher grades are probably too well informed of their rights to submit to extortion veiled in this or any other guise, but there are doubtless considerable numbers of the less intelligent and poorly paid civil servants, at least in some of our state and local governments, who are really being assessed frequently and heavily under the pretence, of course, of “voluntary” contributions. Probably it is true everywhere that those who suffer worst from this despicable malpractice are precisely those who are least able to bear it. Even this, however, is not the chief evil of the system. Absolute non-partisanship in their official work can hardly be expected of a body of men who are constantly being approached for campaign contributions, and in effect being reminded thereby that, civil service or no civil service, they are deemed to be subject in a peculiar degree to party taxation. Moreover one of the great weaknesses of the civil service establishment is the conviction on the part of the opposition party, inevitable whether or not it be justifiable, that civil service employees are being exploited for contributions by the party in power. Publicity may dispel both this abuse, so far as it exists, and also the misconceptions based upon it. If not it may prove desirable in the future to prohibit absolutely all campaign contributions from employees under civil service rules. Administration will certainly be much easier and suspicion more difficult when no contribution whatever is legally permissible than under any system which permits “voluntary” offerings.

In addition to the prohibition or limitation of campaign contributions from certain specified sources the suggestion has been touched upon that it may prove desirable in the end to limit the campaign contributions of individuals. Just what theoretical basis might be found for fixing the exact amount of such limitation is not clear. Possibly the number of voters, the number of candidates, and the estimated legitimate costs of a given campaign could be combined in some way to give a definite result. In practice, however, the question of fixing a satisfactory limit to individual contributions will hardly present any great difficulty. Evasion of such limitations by means of dummy contributors is, as we have seen,[95] not very probable. There ought, however, to be a very stringent penalty against the custom of handing considerable sums to campaign treasurers personally with the understanding that the amount shall be turned in as the individual contribution of the treasurer himself. Limitation of the amount of individual contributions, together with the other
safeguards that have been discussed, may prove a very effective substitute for ante-election publicity. If we are assured that corporation contributions are barred, that the contributions of candidates and civil service employees are either prohibited or strictly limited, and finally that the contributions of others are limited to relatively small amounts, it becomes a matter of distinctly minor importance to know who are the financial supporters on either side. Given these conditions the publication of such information would scarcely attract any notice even during the heat of a campaign.

As a first effect the restriction of contributions according to all or a part of the various propositions discussed above would probably reduce the aggregate of campaign funds considerably. It remains to be seen whether this will have an unfavourable influence upon our political life. Shocked by the magnitude of the sums recently employed many of our social doctors would advise rigorous starvation and copious bloodletting as essential to the radical cure of our campaign diseases. In spite of the necessity of parties under the conditions of American government public prejudice is strongly inclined to underestimate the value of party work. Yet considering the size of the country and the magnitude of the interests involved it is doubtful if the amount expended in the last presidential election, to cite a specific instance, was uneconomical. Certainly an even larger sum could be spent profitably along educational lines in our greater campaigns. One trouble now is that quite apart from the illegal or immoral practices charged against American campaign managers the latter have in too many cases carried on their activities in a conventional fashion which is rather ineffective and wasteful. Thousands of dollars are spent in circulating documents and speeches. Yet printed matter of this character is so cheap and nasty in appearance, so unattractive in form, so devoid of illustration, and often so dry and prolix that it is promptly and deservedly thrust into the waste-basket by practically all recipients. Progressive business men have learned the value of modern forms of advertising in newspapers, magazines, street cars, etc., but the political manager seldom employs it with any effect. In many districts illustrated lectures would be an enormous improvement over the cheap mouthings of the ordinary cart-tail spell-binder. Campaign text-books, as the term is at present understood, are at best dry and formal arsenals of fact fit only for the higher grade of speakers and leaders, or, at worst, mere hodge-podge collections of sensational clippings useful only to equip already convinced partisans with a few accusations and arguments which they can then monotonously parrot forth from the beginning to the end of the campaign. Constructed with some regard to pedagogical principles and popular requirements such books might be made extremely influential. By these and other improved methods our campaigns may finally come to be worth what they cost. Certainly few services are of more importance in a democracy than rousing the people to political issues, instructing them as to men and policies, leading them out from narrow personal concerns to participation in the broad life of the state. Even with all the restrictions on the collection of campaign funds which have been mentioned above it is improbable that sufficient funds for all legitimate purposes will in the long run be denied. If any shortage threatens, campaign managers may better their situation by the same policy which any institution dependent upon public support must follow under similar circumstances,—that is, they must so impress the value of the work they are doing upon the people that ample material support will be freely offered. If this cannot be done they will simply have to get along with less, the probability being, of course, that the smaller amount is quite as much as is necessary and certainly as much as they deserve.

One certain consequence of the prohibition of large contributions will be greater activity on the part of campaign collectors to secure contributions in smaller amounts. This would seem desirable in every way. Until we commit ourselves to the principle of state subsidies it ought to be part of common school instruction everywhere to insist on the duty of the voter to contribute something toward party support. Possibly large contributions might be found unobjectionable in the future if given for some specific purpose, the circulation of a certain speech, for example, or some other educational form of political activity. Considering the abuses which have been charged against campaign managers the almost universal habit of making gifts to them on a carte blanche basis is remarkable to say the least. Taking a suggestion from educational practice, large campaign contributions might be further legitimatised in case it were stipulated, that equal amounts should be raised in small sums by campaign managers. If the time be short in which to comply with a condition of this sort, the interest in such collections, on the other hand, would be very great. Certainly it could scarcely be argued that a sum thus collected represented nothing more than the selfish desire of a rich man to promote one of his personal interests.

Besides prohibiting or limiting contributions from certain sources it may also prove desirable to fix time limits within which large gifts may not be received. Among other conditions voluntarily accepted in 1908 the Democratic National Committee pledged itself to receive no contribution above $100 within three days of the election. The time limit in this case was scarcely long enough to be very impressive, but the principle involved is of some importance. Such facts as we possess with regard to the history of campaign funds indicate “fat-frying” of a most strenuous and compromising character during the last few days preceding an election. Alarmist and hysterical reports about doubtful states were prepared on both sides and presented tearfully and confidentially to men of wealth, to candidates, and to other persons from whom money might perchance be obtainable. The probability is very strong that the great sums thus raised and of necessity spent at the eleventh hour were more largely subject to waste, theft, and corrupt use, than any other money which was placed in the hands of campaign managers. Prohibition of contributions within a short period prior to election or their limitation in amount during such period ought to reduce this evil considerably, at least on the collecting side. If subjected to such a restriction campaign managers will, of course, seek to secure as large a sum as possible before the time limit expires, and they will also take care to keep a sufficient reserve on hand for the culminating needs of the campaign. Nevertheless they will be pretty effectually estopped from calamity howling at the last minute as a means of obtaining large additional “slush” funds.

A very important question is raised by one section of the Wisconsin law of 1897,[96] which provides that contributions to aid certain candidates may be made only by residents of their districts. So far as ascertainable this is the only case of a geographical limitation upon the gathering of campaign funds. It is a matter of common knowledge that in national contests very great sums collected on the outside are poured into doubtful states, sometimes with material influence upon the results. Large amounts of money are occasionally massed in a single district to elect a particularly strong, or to defeat a particularly obnoxious member of Congress. In state and local contests the same sort of financial manipulation is not unusual. Our laws, unlike those of England, do not permit plural voting. An American citizen votes where he resides. No matter how great may be his property holdings he cannot vote elsewhere. But he may spend his dollars anywhere in support of candidates and policies, or his contributions may be similarly employed by the party managers to whom they are handed. It is too early to discuss the equities of a situation the moral obliquity of which is as yet so dimly perceived. A principle of some importance, however, would seem to underlie the Wisconsin prohibition against invasion by foreign campaign contributions.

Assuming publicity and other necessary restrictions of campaign funds to have been put into effect, the question may be raised as to whether business interests could secure proper hearing for themselves in political affairs. It must be conceded at once that government should act always with due regard to economic factors. Many campaign contributions of times past, including even some of the most objectionable, were made by business men who felt that while by so doing they were pledging public officials in their favour they were at the same time pledging these officials to that course of conduct which was best for the prosperity and welfare of the country as a whole. Quite apart from all moral considerations such contributions were looked upon as a sort of business tax, made necessary by our democratic political conditions, and as such fundamentally justifiable. There is no excuse for not knowing better now; in a short time there will be absolutely no justification for tolerating contributions made on this basis. Business men who pursued the old policy were following what looked like a short and easy cut to their immediate ends. In reality they were piling up class hatred, restrictive legislation, obnoxious taxes, and various instalments of socialism. Fortunately this destructive process, so far as objectionable campaign contributions minister to it, is likely to be checked. But legitimate businesses, including big monopolistic concerns properly conducted, will not be debarred by publicity and the regulation of campaign contributions from the use of a great many open and effective means of bringing their interests to the attention of government. Of course grafting business will receive a set-back, but this is exactly what is desired. Our great economic interests would probably be in a far healthier condition to-day if they had employed legitimate agencies only in the past, and neglected altogether the short and dangerous cut to political influence offered by large campaign contributions. Business is now learning the value of frank and honest methods of dealing with the people, of publicity on its own account as contrasted with the old public-be-damned attitude. Internal reforms of business practices, the correction of abuses from within and by insiders, are seen to be much less costly than the application of legislative sledge-hammers. The American people is far from radical at heart. Given full and honest expositions of the case for business it is highly improbable that rash and destructive policies will triumph in the future, any more than they were wont to triumph in time past when business interests fought them in a manner scarcely less objectionable than the subversive policies themselves. And always back of the public opinion and temper of the people there are constitutional guaranties and the courts to maintain them,—safeguards stronger in all probability than those possessed by property in any other civilised nation in the world to-day.[97] Manifestly it will require much more than a reform of our present system of collecting campaign funds to prevent the proper and adequate hearing by governmental authorities of the legitimate business interests of the country.

By way of objection to such limitations of campaign contributions as have been proposed it might be urged that since gifts of services as well as gifts of money are made to campaign committees the former as well as the latter must logically be subjected to regulation. In certain cases it may be admitted that regulation of services is necessary. Particularly is this true of civil service employees. It is by no means improbable that it may be found advisable to enforce by law their complete abstention from all kinds of political work, leaving them nothing beyond the right to cast their vote. Certainly a very considerable amount of trouble is experienced at the present time in keeping them clearly within the legal, but not always self-evident, lines drawn by civil service acts and rulings. With this exception, perhaps, there would seem to be every reason to leave campaign contributions of services free from every restriction but publicity. No means should be neglected of encouraging the widest possible participation by amateurs in party activities and party management, and this is one such means. It is true, of course, that the services of some exceptionally able men may be equivalent to money gifts of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and also that such gifts may not be equally or even proportionally divided among the parties. Normally, however, the differences between individuals as to their political abilities are not to be compared in magnitude to the existing enormous differences in wealth which have made regulation of money contributions a necessity. And if one party is pre-eminently the gainer through gifts of services by brilliant men certainly it would seem to deserve any advantage thus obtained. Its rivals may thereby learn the value of the enthusiastic support of men of talent, and bestir themselves to revise their own programmes so that such men may be induced to enlist in their fighting columns. It is possible that minor parties and reform movements are relatively more successful in this way than the great parties. If so no dislocation of the political balance of power is likely to be occasioned by a policy of regulation of monetary contributions coupled with laisser faire as to contributions of services. Usually the strength of minor parties in enthusiastic personal support will still find itself more than outmatched by the strength of the old line parties in traditional fealty, in practical experience, and in greater monetary resources.

Whatever additional reform measures may be suggested by further experience with regard to the publicity and restriction of campaign contributions, two broad general principles would seem to apply in the application of all legislation of this character.

First, the subject is clearly one of state and local as well as of national politics. The two former are subject to the same abuses as the latter. State and local politics are immensely important in themselves. They touch the daily affairs of the great mass of the people much more closely than do national politics. Moreover there is danger that with campaign fund reform in national affairs only, no matter how thorough it might be, the neglect of similar reforms in state and local politics would facilitate the evasion of national law. At least it would seem to make it possible to use large funds in local and state contests in such a way as to help indirectly but very materially the national interests of one or the other party. Fortunately some of our most important states have already provided for a measure of publicity sufficient to reduce this possibility so far as they are concerned. The danger will not be much lessened, however, until their example has been followed generally. Still it is hardly to be regretted that at the present time the major public interest is centred in the great presidential contest. There is no danger that the object lesson voluntarily given by the two national parties in 1908 will be forgotten by the American people either in succeeding presidential campaigns or in our minor state and city elections. But while we are securing the great political front door let us remember that the horse may also be stolen if we neglect to lock the numerous side and back doors.

Secondly, our primary and convention system is subject to the same abuses in the use of money as the election system proper. Indeed in states solid one way or the other it is probable that corrupt practices are more common in connection with nominations, where there may be sharp fighting, than in the subsequent cut and dried election. Organic reforms of a most sweeping character are in process in this field,[98] and when the time is ripe it would seem to be an easy matter to graft upon them the requirement of publicity of nominating expenses and other restrictions upon primary contributions similar in a general way to the restrictions now being imposed upon campaign contributions. A start has already been made in this direction. By a law which went into effect in 1892, Massachusetts established publicity in respect to nominating as well as election expenses. The Garfield Corrupt Practices Act passed by the Ohio legislature of 1896,[99] and unfortunately repealed in 1902, required publicity and limited the expenditure of candidates before conventions and primaries as well as before elections. In 1906, Pennsylvania passed a law[100] containing a list of the legitimate forms of campaign expenditure and requiring statements from candidates for nomination in the primary as well as from candidates for election. Nebraska, Virginia, and Georgia, have also passed laws of this character.[101] In sharp contrast with these movements for better things within our states are the deplorable conditions currently alleged to exist in the greatest of all our nominating institutions,—the National Conventions. It would seem hardly possible to delay much longer reform measures designed to bring about improved conditions in this field.

Considering the many unsettled points with regard to the proper measures for regulating campaign contributions and the necessity for the extension of such reforms to many areas as yet untouched it is evident that we are dealing with a movement which has scarcely made more than a beginning. Even with satisfactory legislation on our statute books the fight will not be completely won. Fortunately it is believed that the argument of unconstitutionality cannot be employed against this movement.[102] Difficulties of administration will have to be met, however, although it is highly improbable that these will be so great as the difficulties occasioned by the execution of other parts of our corrupt practices acts, such for example as the manifold conditions which prevent the complete enforcement of laws against the bribery of voters. Bi-partisan state election boards may take over all ordinary official duties in connection with laws requiring the publicity of, or otherwise limiting, campaign contributions. In this work they may be somewhat aided by the mutual criticism of the parties themselves, although, unfortunately, this is a party function which is very imperfectly performed in the United States. Much good may be accomplished by such voluntary organisations as the New York Association to Prevent Corrupt Practices at Elections. With men of prominence in both of the leading parties in its directorate and membership the Association proposes:

“First, To ascertain whether any judicial proceedings should be brought by the Association’s initiative; that is to say, whether there is apparent evidence of bribery, or of deliberate falsification, concealment, and evasion in the statements [of campaign contributions and expenditures] such as would warrant a judicial inquiry to compel a proper accounting.”

“Second, To secure a permanent record for the Association of the important facts in connection with the statements filed, upon which an opinion may be based as to whether additional corrupt practices legislation ought to be recommended by the Association to the Legislature.”

The Association further intends to exercise the closest scrutiny over such items as “canvassers,” “watchers,” “expenditures for workers,” and so on. Particularly praiseworthy in its platform is the determination to prosecute violations before the courts. Unless some determined agency undertakes this function all campaign fund enactments will promptly sink to the level of those already too numerous American laws which adorn our statute books with ideal maxims but in practice are ignored by our administrators.[103]

Assuming both legislative and administrative activity in campaign fund reform still we must not overestimate the value of the probable results. Only a part of the problem of the support of party machinery and party workers will be solved thereby, but at least it may be said that an important contribution toward the ultimate complete solution of the problem will be made. Bribery and corruption will not be done away with by the reform. They are, as we have seen, much too persistent and extended to yield to any single reform effort. Indeed some forms of bribery may be encouraged by the new practice with regard to campaign contributions. Although it may be made impossible to place men under obligations while they are candidates it will still be possible to buy them, if they are purchasable, after they have been elected. One should remember, however, that if primaries and elections can be purged of corrupt financial influences it is probable that our successful candidates for office will be less open to venal influence than those who win out under the present vicious system. Thoroughgoing campaign fund reform will enable candidates to attain office without assuming financial burdens of such a character as to make it difficult for them to act in a perfectly honest and independent manner. By far the worst evil of the present system is the ease with which it enables men otherwise incorruptible to be placed tactfully, subtly, and—as time goes on—always more completely under obligations incompatible with public duty. Finally campaign fund reform will enable parties to become what democratic theory requires them to be, namely honest interpreters of the popular will instead of crooked agents of sinister influence into which they will otherwise degenerate. Taking the most moderate view of the benefits to arise from such reforms, therefore, it would seem a clear duty of all patriotic citizens and statesmen to work first for the publicity of campaign contributions and afterwards for such other restrictions upon their collection and use as experience may suggest.