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.