Government in the United States, National, State and Local

by James Wilford Garner

Activity of the Presidential Candidate.—Formerly it was not considered proper for the presidential candidates themselves to take an active part in the campaign by traveling about the country and making speeches, but in recent years there has been a change in this respect. Mr. Bryan in 1896 traveled about the country and delivered hundreds of speeches in behalf of his candidacy, and he pursued a similar course in 1900 and again in 1908 when he was the Democratic candidate. In the latter year, Mr. Taft, the Republican candidate, likewise entered actively into the campaign and delivered more than 400 speeches in thirty different states. In 1912 Mr. Wilson and Mr. Roosevelt made extensive campaign tours and delivered many speeches. Similar tours were made in later campaigns.

Raising and Expenditure of Campaign Funds.—The management of a national political campaign requires the expenditure of large sums of money for printing, postage, telegrams, express, rent of halls, music, expenses of speakers, organizing clubs, and the like. This money is spent solely under the direction of the national chairman, who until recently was not required to render an account of the moneys contributed for this purpose.

The Raising of Campaign Funds.—Prior to 1884 the expenditures on account of a national campaign were comparatively small and were raised by the party in power largely by assessments on federal office-holders; but the civil service law enacted in the year previous forbade assessments of this kind and thus cut off an important source of supply. More attention then began to be turned toward the great corporations, many of which desired to become the beneficiaries of special legislation or to secure immunity from government interference with the management of their business. In a recent campaign, one corporation, a life insurance company, contributed $200,000; one railroad company gave $100,000; and many others $50,000. Sometimes a corporation contributes equally to the campaign funds of both parties, on the principle that it is a wise policy to be on good terms with each.

Contributions of Corporations now Forbidden.—The raising and spending of so much money as a part of the process of electing a President has recently given rise to a demand that the sources of national campaign contributions should be made public. Moreover, it is coming to be regarded as an evil that the large corporations who desire beneficial legislation or immunity from prosecution should have become the chief contributors to campaign funds. This feeling led to the enactment by Congress in 1907 of a law forbidding national banks and other corporations which have charters granted by Congress, from making contributions to the campaign funds of any party at any election, national, state, or local. The law also prohibits any corporation, whether chartered under the authority of the national government or not, from making campaign contributions at any election at which the President of the United States or any member of Congress is to be chosen.

Publicity of Campaign Contributions.—In 1910 Congress passed a law requiring the treasurer of each national party committee to make and publish after the election a sworn statement showing every contribution of $100 or more received by him, every expenditure of $10 or more, and the totals of all other contributions and expenditures.

Finally, in 1911, Congress went still further and passed a law requiring the publication of such statements before the election. The elections affected by these acts are those of President and members of Congress. The act of 1911 forbids any candidate for representative to spend or promise more than $5,000, and any candidate for senator more than $10,000, in his campaign. And such candidates are required to file statements of all campaign receipts and expenditures.

The Succession to the Presidency.—The Constitution declares that in case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the same shall devolve upon the Vice President. In case of the removal, death, resignation, or inability of both the President and the Vice President, Congress is authorized to provide for the succession. The only way in which the President may be removed is by impeachment and conviction. President Johnson was impeached, mainly for the violation of the tenure of office act, but the senate failed by one vote to convict him. Had he been convicted the office would have been declared vacant. There has been no instance of the resignation of a President.[72] Five Presidents have died in office: Harrison, Taylor, Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley. In each case the dead President was succeeded by the Vice President. No case of inability to discharge the duties of the presidential office has ever been construed as existing, though in fact such a case existed from July 2, 1881, when President Garfield was shot, to September 19, when he died. A similar case existed during the period in which President McKinley lingered on his deathbed, from September 6 to September 14, 1901. In neither case did the Vice President assume the reins of office until death had made the office vacant. Likewise during President Wilson's serious illness in 1919-1920, the Vice President did not act.

Succession Law of 1792.—Congress provided by law in 1792 that in case of the removal, death, resignation, or inability of both the President and the Vice President, the president pro tempore of the senate should succeed, and after him the speaker of the house. There were several practical and political objections to this arrangement, however. In the first place, there might be considerable periods of time when there was no president pro tempore of the senate or speaker of the house, and consequently no one to succeed in case of a vacancy.[73] Another objection to the law—political in character—was illustrated by the situation that existed in 1886. The Democratic Vice President Hendricks had died, and in case the presidential office had become vacant it would have been filled by a Republican president of the senate. Thus the executive branch of the government would have passed from the hands of the party that had carried the country at the last election, to the other party, merely by the death of a public officer.

Succession Act of 1886.—In 1886 Congress changed the law so as to give the succession to the presidency to the members of the cabinet, in the order of the creation of their departments, in case of the death or removal of both the President and the Vice President. As the members of the cabinet usually belong to the same party as the President and Vice President, the office in such a contingency would remain in the control of the party which elected the President at the last election. No special provision has yet been made, however, in regard to the succession in case the President elect and Vice President elect should die after their election by the electoral college on the second Monday in January and before their inauguration on the 4th of March. The electoral college could not be reconvened because it becomes functus officio immediately after electing the President. As the law stands, the succession would probably go to some member of the old cabinet, who might be of the opposite party. In such a case, however, Congress might provide for a special presidential election.