The Washington herald., 1911-03-05
By FRANK PARKER sTockBRIpGE.

termine as they saw mt, and the idea
that it should be regulated by law is, III
its practical application, one of the new
est of new ideas in politics. 1t is an
idea, however, that has taken firm root,
and it is not an unwarranted prediction TO
assert that the time is close at hand
when every State, as well as the United
States, will provide drastic regulations
governing the use of money in politics.
The necessity of such regulations,
If elections are to be conducted honestly
and candidates elected on their merits,
is too plainly apparent to require argu-
ment or even explanation. This particu-
lar reform is one that has no open oppo-
nents. That it has not yet been generally
adopted seems to be due to the fact that
the interests which profit by the use a
money in elections are able to bring
underground influences to bear upon leg
islative bodies sufficient to prevent, in
many States, the enactment of such laws
"a fact which is in itself the best kind
of an argument for a corrupt practices
act.
1t is an old saying in politics that the
party with the biggest barrel usually
wins, and the eXigencies of politics have
led, in scores Of noteworthy instances, to
the selection of candidates for high Office,
not because of their merits or their popu-
larity, but because they were wealthy
and willing to make large campaign
contributions, or because they were able
to induce others 20 do SO. often by means
of pledges to protect the interests thus
CnntTihufinr N financial schemes
The complaints of corporation control OF
legislative bodies and governments have
not always been well founded. but there
has been enough foundation for them to
justify the popular outcry against cor
poratpn contributions to campaign funds
for the purpose of securing favorable
action by the governing authorities. and
q considerable proportion of the corrupt
practices acts now in operation aim at
prohibiting corporation contributions for
any political purpose.
That the use of money for the pur-
pose of Improperly influencing elections
has always been widespread in the United
States is undeniabIe, aud the attention of
those who believe that the corruption of
the electorate which prevailed in Jack
invited to the recent revelations in Adams
County. Ohio, where more than third
of the registered voters of the county
have been indicted on the charge of hav-
ing sold their votes at the last election.
and three-quarters of those indicted have
pleaded guilty. II this condition were pc
culiar to that particular section it would
be bad enough. but the testimony Of OBJ
servers throughout the country is to the
effect that Adams County is merely an
exaggeration Of a prevalent type. so far
as the rural districts OF the United States
go.
In the effort TO put an end 10 political
corruption there have been two distinct
methods of attack. One has been the
effort to prevent corporations from con-
tributing to campaign funds; the other
has been the effort to regulate the
amounts that may be spent by candidates
which money may be used. Each of these
general plans has been applied in various
ways, until almost any>pse that could be
made OF" money in elections would be
illegal in one State or another.
So far as national elections go, there is
a very sweeping and drastic prohibition
OF campaign contributions by corporations
on the Federal statute books. This law,
adopted in January 1891. prohibits any ma
tional bank or corporation organized
under Federal laws from making any
contribution whatever, and for
bids all other corporations from contrib
uting to campaign funds at elections at
which members of Congress, Presidential
electors, or United States Senators are to
be chosen. Penalties of fines of from $50
to 5000 and Imprisonment for directors
who consent to such contributions are
provided.
AS an effective means of preventing
both improper contributions and the i'm
proper use of money in elections, the plan
Of requiring the publication OF the names
Of all contributors to campaign funds has
been adopted in some States, while in
those and others candidates are required
to file swcTn statements of the amounts
OF money expended by them. The effort |
TO require such publicity in national cleo |
tons has so far been unsuccessful, al !
though urged by Presidents Roosevelt and |
Taft. BY voluntary action both the Re |
publican and Democratic national COM
nittees made public the names of con- |
in 1908. the former after election; |
the latter before election.
In very few States are party organiZa- |
tons required to give publicity to the |
OF their revenues or their expen- |
litures. and the statements OF the indi- |
,-idnal 10 fhprefOrp give |
any correct idea of the amounts expended |
Tor election purposes. While nearly every |
State has statutes prohibiting the bribery |
of voters, many OF them fail to specify |
what constitutes bribery, and only a very |
few make the offer of bribery an offense. |
In more than half the States betting on |
elections is forbidden by, law, and any |
oerson who has made bet is thereby dis |
iranchised and subject to penalties If he |
attempts to vote thereafter. In many |
States which have more or less compre-
lensive corrupt practices acts relating to |
elections there is no attempt to regulate |
he use of money for the primaries.
The corrupt practices act which is gen.
rally held up as a model, and which con-
aims perhaps the best provisions to be |
hat of Oregon. This law, which was
adopted by referendum on initia-
i've petition, in 1908, forbids, among
'ther things, promises of appoint
nents in return for political sup
'ort, solicitation or acceptance of
contributions from or payment
II contributions by persons holding APP
,ointive positions, publication or distribu-