The morning call., 1893-02-05
WHAT POLITICS COST.

The candidates who ran at the late cleo
ton. for veal or for woe, are making
clean breast Of their expenses on that oc-
casiun, aud their revelations are highly IN
stIuctive. Il seems that outside OF The
money spent by individual candidates, the
sum dishursed BY each organization varied
from SIS. 49, to SO. 400 The first men
toned sum represented the amount OF
money collected and disbursed by the Non
Partisans. and the last he amount taken in
and paid out by the Democrats; the Re-
publicans seem to come In between the two
with an expense account of SIS, 430.
The heaviest item Of expense was the adj
vertisiDg, most OF which was required by
law. This item was 1922 % for the Non
Partsans, $3.50 for the Democrats and
$500 fer the Republicans. The Non-Parti-
sans spent SlSa5 60 for public meetings, the
Democrats 5000 fer the same purpose. 1t
cost tie Non-Partisans about $1,000 and the
Dem Gratis about $4,000 to watch the regis
tration and to keep the track OF suffers;
what the Republican outlay for this purpose
was does not appear. For actual expenses
on the day of election the NonPartisaBs
paid out $3.50, the Democrats $3.50, the Re
publican expenditure being again unknown.
What seems TO have swelled the expense OF
the Democrats above that Of the other par
ties was the publication Of a campaign
document known as the Guide TO Voters.
which cost $4,000 1t may also be observed
that while Maurice Brandt. secretary of the
Republican campaign committee, sets down
the expense of that body for advertising at
$500, Mr.. Sonntag. who was the purse
bearer of the party, says that he paid $3.50
for o1N mi NJ
looks as though Mike de Young had re-
quired his party to pay him for booming
himself. TO its utter discontinue.
The sources from which the money came
are also interesting reading. The NOn-Par-
tisans got S9621 from volunteer subscrip-
tons and S3S13 from voluntary contributions
| from candidates. no one being assessed.
! The Democrats got their money directly
! from assessments levied on the candidates.
What each paid is not exactly known. The
| committee got as much as IL could OF every
man on the ticket. Some Of the JUICES
! paid as much as 5000. The candidates for
Supervisors were taxed two years salary,
so that if they were elected they serve for
/ glory. Howl much OF these contributions
went into the hands of the Democratic cam
| paign committee does not appear. Much Of
it was doubtless expended by the candidates
/ directly The secretary of the Republican
campaign COMMITTEES says that the County
/ Committee in San Francisco got $4,000 from
/ the candidates. $3.50 from the State Central
/ Committee and about $1,000 from few
prominent Republicans-in all S7750-tO
meet an expenditure Of $500. But SIR. Sonn-
tag says that he collected S15,430. He does
| not say where he got it.
The most outrageous feature of the
present system is the assessment of can
didates, which actually amounts to sale
/ of Offices by political parties. a candidate
! for Supervisor who pays out his whole
salary for two years to get elected must
reckon that he will recover himself by
selling his vote; and yet we eXelaim against
venality in the Board Of Superyisorsl 1t is
! intolerable that a member of the bar
whose learning and probity prompt the
public to raise him to the bench should
be required to pay six weeks salary for his
nomination. MIR. Dwyer, who is in the
! political swim, says that the candidates for
/ Sher # speni, one way and another, $500
each, and that the candidates for County
! Clerk were as heavily assessed. What the
fees of the shTieyalty amount to the public
are not informed, but certainly the County
| Clerk has no opportunity Of making for
tune in an Office which he has to spend two
! years salary to get.
The bill now before the Legislature re-
! curing candidates 10 file q sworn statement
/ OF their election expenses before ticking
| Office is drawn in imitation of the English
| act on the subject, but is perhaps none the
worse on that account Mr.. Dryer is prob
ably in error when he says that man who
would buy a seat would perjure himself TO
| conceal what he had done. There are de-
grees in guilt, and the enoTmity of political
corruption is not generally realized. 1t has
been found in England that the act has
worked well. and it would probably work
well here. 1t is a popular error to suppose
that money spent by candidates is invari-
ably spent in the purchase of votes. 1t gen.
| orally goes in another direction. Expert
enced politicians reckon that the actual
money spent in buying votes in this city
rarely exceeds s10.O0O at any election. and
this is for the whole Of a ticket. The bulk
Of the money goes into the pockets CT work
ing politicians, who sell an influence they
do not pos sess and rarely stay bought.