New-York tribune., 1906-11-23
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES.

This year for the first time full light Is shed
upon the expenditures OF political parties in
state campaign. The publicity is a saIutary
thing. We know how much money each party
had, who contributed It and how it was spent
The knowledge slences for this campaign all
the usual idle gossip and malicious hints OF
the corruption of the electorate No one may
talk of the millions spent in 'buyfng the state
No one may whisper mysteriously about how
Big Gun gave the winning party half million
and how he will be "taken care Of at Albany.
1t is all down in black and white, sworn 10,
and a confusion to sensation mongers Inc
largest individual contribution, outside of Mr..
Hearsts would buy very little in the way of
political favors. and, indeed, is only widows
mite compared with the portly sum which that
gentleman put up and which he guaranteed
would be no more than his customary conU1bu-
ton TO Democratic national campaigns in which
he was interested merely a Democrat.
Apparently no other millionaire feels the call
of party upon pocketbook one-tenth as strongly
as does Mr.. Hearst when only his feelings as
Democrat are engaged He must be bless
ing TO his party, with his quadrennial quarter
million IargeSses-if he lives up to his guar
antee.
We do not know whether or not this cam
paign was typical in the matter of expends-
lures. There was no indication during it that
there either more or less money spent
than usual. Corporations We're barred by law
from contributng-and that is excellent
thing-but the money raised may not have been
any less that account; for increased efforts
were undoubtedly put forth by the committees
TO obtain individual contributions. But in any
event it is great gain that the mystery which
formerly wrapped up contributors, contribu-
tons and disbursements is at an end. Perhaps
the pleasant assumption is justified that the
usual post-election tales about corruption i'll
the past had no sounder basis in fact than any
which could be founded upon the published
counts of this years expenditures. With the
element of mystery all the romances of the
man on the inside" go into desuetude.
That other familiar yarn about "one partys
having all the money" loses its credibility. The
Republican State Committee spent $3.50, oil, the
Democratic State Committee S79, 1897. and the
Independence League 1924, ,222. The Hearst
fund, then, adding the two together was
S313,619 The difference between that and the
Republican fund is nconsiderable. The sixty
one Republican county organizations spent
$4,000 The sixty-one Democratic county or
CARNATIONS spent S240,000. The expenditures
of the Independence League through its county
committees were not given in the published ac-
count, but probably, added to the Democratic
county expenditures, bring the figures close to
The cost Of the campaign was not great con-
sidering the size Of the state. Necessary ex-
penditures are large. The Judiciary Nomina-
tors here in New York County spent S1O1, $50
No one will accuse them of corruption. Their
campaign, not particularly energetic or i'm
pressive, clearly shows how great the legiti-
mate expenses Of an election are. 1t is not
possible to go into all of the figures, but here
are illustrations of the way the money went:
Speakers cost the Republican State Committee
$4,000; public meetings. sos 900; special trains
for Mr. Hughes, $1,000; printing STOOD
S,049000 pamphlets were printed-salaries sup
plies, stationery. etc, $4,000. Then S34. 900
was paid to Democratic Watchers and $4,000
was spent on a Democratic canvass Of election
districts. The Independence League spent $685.
900 for watchers.
If any vote buying was done, it was a neg
ligible quantity. There was not enough money
left after the legitimate expenses of the cam
paign had been paid to accomplish much tow
ard the corruption Of the electorate Even if
there were money to do It, the secret ballot
makes vote buying too speculative venture
to commend itself TO the business men who run
political campaigns Since the passage of the
secret ballot law there has been no better cleo
ton legislation than the law requiring public
ity Of campaign expenses. The ancient mys
terry corrupted the ina gination, If nothing else
1t is good to end that corruption. The pub
Hshed figures show, however the need Of
law restricting the individual contributions Of
candidates. Such gifts of nominees as Mr.
Hearst's $3.50 900 and Senator-elect Gates's S31..
$50 should be Illegal. They put too great
premium upon wealth in a candidate, and that
would be especially the case if the publicity
law should result in the future in decreased
campaign funds.