Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1911-07-20
All Former Publicity Legislation
0vershadowed by Proposed
New Law.
NOT 4 DISSENTING VOTE
Required Publicity Of Primary
Election Expenses and Pledges
Of Jobs Creates Some
Objection.

Washington. July 1.-THE most drastic
campaign publicity legislation ever pass
ed in either branch 0f Congress las
adopted by the Senate late to-day practi-
cally without n dissenting vote Using the,
prediction publicity bill passed BY tho
House OF Representa- tives, as a basis tho
Senate constructed during the day a pro-
posed law with the following important
features:
NO candidate for the Senate or House
shall spend in the election more than a,
sum equal to ten cents for each voter in
his district or State.
No senatorial candidate shall snend a
total of more than 5000 in the primary
and general election. and no candidate
for the House shall spend more than 5000.
Publicity must be given to all primary
ca mpaign contributions and expenditures
All general election expenses must bo
made public before the election. beginning
70 days before election. and making publ.
cation each six days until election.
All promises OF political Jobs must bs
made public.
The bill further makes it illegal to
promise political places in order to secure
election support, or to aid in influencing
the election of any member of a State
legislature
The bill probably will be the subject OF
prolonged conference between the two
houses. 1t originated in the House as a
part of the democratic legislative pro-
gram, and was designed to REQUIRE the
publication OF expenditures before cleo
tion which is not required by the exist
ing publicity law
Tie republicans in the House unsuc-
cessfully attempted to extend the bill 70
cover primary election expenses In the
Senate to-day the primary election amnd-
nnt coupled with more radical amend
ments, was adopted with little opposition.
The Senate amendments authorized nv
the committee on privileges and elections
required publicity Of all primary election
expenses and all pledges of political Jobs
or favors.
Some objection was made to this on
the ground that the primary elections
were not within the control of Con
sress. The amendment was finally
adopted, however, by a vote Of so to
7. Senators Bacon, Bailey, Bankhead
Johnston. Bryan. Overrnan and Taylor
voting against 1t.
The more rigid portion OF the bill,
limiting the amount of a senatorial or
congressional candidate, may spend
In any election, and prohibiting thu
making OF all campaign pledges. was
postponed by Senator Reed of Missouri,
and adopted only after a long debate.
Senator Sutherland Of Utah admitted
that the House conferees might force
elimination of this from the bill.
Senator Reed referred to the cam
paign expense statement filed by SEN
ator Stephenson of Wisconsin. showing
expenditures of approximately SlO7, 900,
and to other large sums spent by sem
atorial candidates. He finally offered
an amendment putting the total ex-
penditure by any candidates at a sum
not to exceed ten cents per head for
the voters in the candidates state
Senator BOrah said this would perm-
a senatorial candidate in New York
TO spend nearly 100000 in his election,
while the candidate in Nevada could
spend only about $1,000
The Reed amendment was defeated
once, but was renewed and adopted.
At one time he had the limit of eX-
pense at $4,000 for a Senate candidate
and $500 for House candidate; but
at the suggestion of Senator owen 81
Oklahoma this was increased 10 $40
for the senatorial candidate and $1,000
for the House candidate.