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]