Three votes for a dollar

WAYNE CARD

How it is that habitually in our American elections the victorious candidate is the one who spends most

Our presidential election is coming to be a costly circus. Every four years the elephant dances to the tune of three to six million dollars, and the donkey brays sorrowfully because bis manger is less overflowing. The political barkers scoop in more coins than the promoters of leg shows, and ward heelers outfit themselves in spiffy Florsheims.

I bis isn't saying that the onlooker fails to get bis money's worth in excitement, amusement, and speculation. Hut it does mean that the political hippodrome is not a fret; show. It takes big money to put over a candidate, whether he's a heavyweight, a tight-rope walker, or a mere clown. Our last presidential election cost a dollar for every three votes cast. It cost nearly twice as much to elect Hoover as to put McKinley in the White House.

It isn't only the presidential elections that run to long figures, either. In 1930, more than five million dollars was spent in electing United States Senators. In this connection, it should be kept in mind that, except for vacancies, only thirty-two Senators are up in each election and that a large part of the expenditures remains unreported. More than $1,800,000 was spent in the Pepper-Vare contest in Pennsylvania in 1926.

Why is it that nearly every election, national or local, costs more than the last one? Why is it that the pre-nomination talk about a candidate always gravitates to the question of whether or not it will be easy to raise money for him?

The campaign figures tell the story. Of our last nine presidential elections, eight have gone to the party whose national committee spent the most money. The one exception was in 1916, when, it will be recalled, the vote was extremely close and the outcome was in doubt for several days after the election. In general, it is true also in state and local elections that to the biggest spender goes the victory.

• That is why the politicians are now rushing about, trying importunately to shake down the sugar plums. A candidate without a load of money behind him is certain to flounder—unless he's a Bill Borah or a Henry Field in one of the less populous states. And the more cash the one nominee gets, the more his opponent must scare up. The only limit is that of the gullibility of campaign contributors.

In the eyes of many politicians, the campaign contributor is assuming a place more important than that of large groups of voters. When John J. Raskob wanted to justify bis position on the Democratic wet plank, he queried not those who voted for A1 Smith in 1928 but those who came across with the big donations. This action shocked the old-timers, but it was hard-headed politics nevertheless.

Gone are the days when Matthew Quay "fried the fat," when Mark Hanna taxed the banks on a basis of their capital, and when some of the biggest insurance companies used funds belonging to policyholders for contributions to both political parties, from whom legislative favors were sought. Hut the money still flows in, though it is harder to raise and much of it must come indirectly. Although it has been unlawful since 1883 to solicit political contributions from federal employees, and although corporations have since been barred from making such donations, postmasters always are left poorer after an election and many corporations find that they have bad unusually heavy "legal expenses."

In addition to the campaign chests of the various parties, sometimes additional funds are raised by minority factions to fight an aspirant or a nominee of their own party. Thus Bishop James Cannon, Jr., and other southern Democrats raised many thousands of dollars to defeat A1 Smith in 1928. And thus certain prominent Republicans, some of them on the party payroll, let go of nearly six thousand dollars in an attempt to return Senator George W. Norris to private life in 1930.

® Occasionally, of course, the big money doesn't win. A combination of other strong factors may overcome even the persuasiveness of money bags. That happened in Illinois in 1930. in the case of .Mrs. Ruth Hanna McCormick, who has since become Mrs. Albert G. Simms. In other cases, the revolt of public opinion against the indirect buying of nominations or elections, or the fear of such revolt, acts to obviate what might appear as the corrupting of the polls. The carelessness of one of bis campaign managers in 1920 probably cost Frank O. Lowden the presidential nomination—which would have meant the presidency in that Republican year. It is true also that Smith of Illinois and Vare of Pennsylvania were refused at the Senate door, though the almost equally spendthrift Jim Davis was let in. For the most part, however, elections follow the Mazuma route. Today almost any successful candidate must handle money in a way to sadden even the aged Lorimer. Even city elections often run into enormous figures. In New York in 1917, more than a million dollars was raised for the purpose of reëlecting John Purroy Mitchel as mayor.

Where does the money come from? This question cannot be answered completely; the recent laws requiring the publication of campaign contributions are full of loopholes. Not only do the laws fail to cover all kinds of political funds, but often the ultimate source of a contribution is hidden by having the money pass through the hands of an intermediate agency. The books of a state Republican committee, for instance, may show a contribution of twenty thousand dollars from the Zenith Republican Club, but the record doesn't show from whose pocket the money originally came, though the committee may be aware of bis identity.

The first to be assessed are the candidates and those already in office. Even those protected by civil service regulations find it advantageous to make "voluntary contributions." In Ohio the custom of both parties has been to accept ten per cent of a year's salary from each candidate and three per cent from each office-holder. Hut, either in that state or elsewhere, he is a lucky man who gets off so easily.

Other contributions come, of course, from relatives and friends of the candidates, from loyal party supporters, and from those who hope to derive personal gain from the outcome of the election. The last-named group may include, in national campaigns, manufacturers seeking higher tariffs on certain products, entrepreneurs desirous of oil or mining concessions from the public domain, or those who are anxious to maintain business confidence or to curb the growth of radicalism. In local elections, such contributors may include men who seek paving or building contracts or utility franchises or others who want protection for gambling and liquor enterprises.

Some of the larger donations from individual men include those of Charles P. Taft for $110,000 and $150,000 toward his brother's campaigns in 1908 and 1912 respectively, that of Cleveland Dodge for $79,000 to the Democrats in 1916, and that of Weaker I. Bonitz for $96,547 to the Davis-Brown campaign in Pennsylvania in 1930.

How is this money spent? Most of it, particularly in national elections, goes for normal and unquestionably legitimate advertising. The maintenance of national headquarters for a major party during a presidential campaign may run to half a million dollars. Then there must be radio, newspaper, and magazine advertising. When it is realized that a single page in some of the largest dailies costs more than $1,500, it is easy to understand why a great amount of money is required. In 1920, the Republicans spent $70,000 in the foreign language press alone.

■ It is no small item, either, to buy and distribute fifteen million lithographs of the party's nominee or to provide campaign buttons for every small boy who has tired of collecting colored caps from pop bottles. Other expenses include the salaries and transportation of stump speakers and publicity men, the leasing of halls, the hiring of brass bands, and the printing and mailing of thousands of pamphlets.

(Continued on page 68)

(Continued from page 48)

Some money, in addition, goes to keep on the payroll of the party—or of the Government—a number of useful politicians whose loyalty might otherwise he in question. This is done particularly in the more dusky areas of the south before the G. O. 1*. nominating convention. As Senator Jim Watson once remarked, "It's the squeaky wheel that gets greased."

What most concerns the student of government, however, is the expenditure that occurs on election day. The money spent at the last minute is peculiarly effective, and it is this spending which gives rise to most of the criticism of what radicals call "slush funds." The final expense of getting out the vote and of watching the polls is necessarily handled at the bottom of the political organization. In some instances, it accounts for as much as half of the money spent in winning or losing—an election.

Nowadays one seldom hears of the actual buying of votes in this country. Not only are public sentiment and election laws solidly against such bribery, hut there is no way of checking the bribed voter; he might accept money from two opposing candidates and then vote for a third. W hat is done instead is to heel the ward heelers and to hire floaters to bring to the polls their relatives and others who might otherwise stay at home. Sometimes transportation is provided not only for the lame and the blind but for the able-bodied as well. In New York City. Tammany Hall customarily gives four thousand dollars to each assembly district before an election.

Of course, if each side has an equal amount of money to spend on election day, the efforts of the opposing precinct leaders will tend to neutralize each other. Rut, as often happens, one party is much better oiled than the other; and this party—barring a near miracle—is the one which emerges victorious.

While some of the individual states took earlier action to regulate the collection and expenditure of election funds, beginning with New York in 1890, the federal legislation in this field has come almost entirely within the last twenty-eight years. The present federal restrictions not only bar the solicitations of contributions from government employees and the acceptance of gifts from corporations, hut they also limit the amounts to he spent in certain ways by Congressional candidates, prohibit the pre-election promising of appointive offices, and require the filing of lists of campaign contributors. Most of this legislation followed the arousing of public indignation over election spending in 1901 and 1905, and it has been consolidated and amended in the Corrupt Practices Act of 1925.

The present regulations, however, have numerous defects. The limit on Congressional campaign expenditures does not include money spent by candidates for travel, printing, postage, radio advertising, or telephone and telegraph service. The law also fails to cover expenditures in primary campaigns, which often are heavier than those of the subsequent election campaigns; Congress has yet to circumvent the 1921 split decision of the l nited States Supreme Court, in the Newberry case, which failed to uphold the jurisdiction of Congress over Senatorial primaries.

The requirement of publicity is also vague and only partially effective. It does not fix clearly the responsibility either for improper expenditures or for failure to file reports. The reports are not given wide publicity, and they do not include many of the most important expenditures. Naturally, the funds used in a national election campaign do not all pass through the hands of the official committees of the parties. And often those funds which are used surreptitiously, by agencies other than the committees, are those which there would be most point in investigating.

Another loophole appears in the matter of campaign deficits, contributions toward the clearing of which are not reported. As Senator Cutting once explained, "A contribution made to a pre-election fund would have been in the nature of a gamble, but a contribution made to a deficit, and particularly to a deficit of the party which had been successful in the election, was simply putting money over the counter and getting a return for his investment." Thus Harry Sinclair, who wanted certain federal oil leases, appeared to be drawing a sure-to-win number when he contributed generously to the Republican deficit of 1920.

Some people have advocated the American adoption of the practice of certain foreign nations in which the government pays for election campaign advertising, allotting publicity impartially to the various parties, as John Stuart Mill recommended in the last century. Colorado adopted such a plan in 1909, but the statute was declared unconstitutional.

The problem of preventing the misuse of money in political races cannot be solved by legislation alone. There must be an awakening of voters from their present lethargy, a closer popular scrutinizing of campaign funds, and more adequate support of political parties by those whose sole interest as contributors is the furthering of the party's principles.

Yet when it takes sixteen times his annual salary to elect or reelect a man to the United States Senate— taking the average for 1930—it would appear that further legislation might at least go part way toward restoring our elections to a more democratic basis. With the aid of outside experts, the Senate Committee on Senatorial Campaign Expenditures has formulated a bill which, if enacted and enforced, would tighten the regulations on the collection and expenditure of political funds, would provide more detailed publicity, and would bring the primaries within the scope of federal regulation. Some such step is urgently needed if our elections are to become again in reality what they are in theory—clear expressions of an unbought public opinion.