The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1913-09-26
A CAND1DATE,s pERoUIsIrEs

| Some of the early testimony in the
trial of William Sulzer on impeachment
| indicates that the laws which have
been passed in the several states for
| the publicity of campaign contribu-
| tions and expenditures fall far short
J of meeting the demands of the situa-
i ton and are little better than useless
| if there is a disposition on the part OF
| a candidate to evade them.
Among the more important of the
| impeachment charges against the erst-
while New York governor are those
which declare that he did not make an
accounting, as required by law, of all
| of the campaign contributions that he
received, and that he diverted some of
\ them to his personal uses, which in
this instance happened to consist of
gambling in Wall street. Along come
| two of these supposed contributors to
| the SulZer campaign fund, Jacob Schiff
and Henry Morganthau, whose contri-
buttons amounted respectively to $500
and $4,000, with the statements that
this money was given by them to Mr.
Sulzer to use in any way he saw Mt
There was a designation on the back
of Mr.. Schiff's check for the $1,000 to
the effect that it was a contribution
to Mr.. Suffers campaign fund, but Mr..
Schiff explained that this was a little
carelessness on his part and it did not
restrict the use of the money to that
purpose. Mr.. Morganthau testified
that he had placed no limitations what
ever on the use of his $4,000 gift, al
though he had made it to help Mr..
Sulzer in his campaign
If such a condition of affairs be toll
Grated, candidate for office need only
to account for such contributions of
money that he receives during the
progress of his campaign as he pleases.
He can classify them as it suits his
fancy, this one for campaign purposes
and that one for personal use. And
such an accounting as he may feel like
making to the public may represent
only a small portion of the money that
was given to him during the progress
of his campaign.
Such an Interpretation of the rights
and privileges of a candidate for office
destroys utterly the aims and purposes
of the laws that seek to give publicity
to campaign receipts and expenditures.
These were designed to let the public
know just who were contributing to
the expenses of a candidate for office
and how much they were giving. They
were conceived with the idea of shut
ting off large contributions from big
corporations and other large .moneyed
interests who might have axes of one
sort or another to grind. Such contrf-
buttons would not stand the glare of
publicity. And that has been the eff
feet of these laws as far as contribu-
tions to the financial committees of
political parties have been concerned,
and it was presumed that the same was
the case in respect to the individual
campaign funds of candidates.
But, if you please. the latter need
not necessarily be the case. A candi-
date for governor, for instance, like in
the case of Mr.. Sulzer. can receive
bushels of money during the progress
of his campaign for his personal use
from his friends and any variety of
special interests, whose motives may
not be entirely unselfish. OF these
moneys he does not have to give an
accounting. 1t is the privilege of any
man. of course. to dole out his money
In large sums as SlIlS 10 ITle1luS, even
if the practice is not common one.
But when such gifts begin to fall into
a mans lap only when, and not until
he has become a candidate for high
public office, the motives of the givers
and also of the receiver are open to an
undesirable suspicion. The people of
any state would not place much trust
and confidence in a candidate for Of
flee whom they knew to be the recip-
lent of large money gifts from
friends that happened to be coinci-
dent with his campaign. Nor are they
likely to be in a mood to tolerate such
activities. The people, though. are not
supposed to know such things. Nor
would they under ordinary circum-
stances. Contributions to the pocket
book of a candidate during his cam
paign for his personal use are purely
private matters. That is the theory of
Mr. Sulzer and his friends. 1t is a
theory, however, that will not awaken
much enthusiasm among the people. 1t
is repugnant to democratic ideals to
think of a candidate for office enrich
ing himself through the largesse of
friends even though they have no
Interior motives in view. which is
scarcely ever likely to be the case.