The Cordova daily times., 1921-02-08
PRIVATE MONOPOLY IN POLlTi-
 CAL PUBLICITY

The Hearst newspapers denounce the cntention of the attorneys for Senator Newberry and his associates, in an appeal in their cases pending before the United States supreme court, that the law cannot constitu- tionally make candidates for office criminally liable on account of expen- ditures made in their behalf by friends or groups of friends, where it Is not shown that the money was corruptly expended.
 In other words, MT. Hearst wants men sent to the penitentiary because of spending too much money, for in- stance, for publicity in behalf of themselves and the cause they repre- sent. This same position is taken by other publishers and syndicates own ing newspapers and chains of news papers.
 What is the explanation of such an attitude as this? That these men and interests, owning or controlling news papers, wish to prevent, by law, men and interests, owning or controlling newspapers, wish to prevent, by law, men and interests not owning or con- trolling newspapers and chains of newspapers from paying for newspa- per space to be used in offsetting the statements and arguments it is possible for these publishers to print and circulate without cost to them selves.
 In other words what they seek is special privileges against individuals, groups, candidates and political par ties not owning newspapers. Their thought is that they should be able to employ the law to prevent other men from having anything like an equal opportunity to influence public sentiment, and when such an effort is made by an individual they would have matters so arranged that the candidate who attempts it may be sent to the penitentiary on the totally unwarranted assumption that what is is entirely virtuous in themselves is criminal in persons not in position to use powerful newspapers, and groups of newspapers, for their own personal og partisan propaganda.
 The so-called corrupt practices act is not directly aimed at corrupt prac- tices or intended primarily to pre- vent them. If there had been an hon. est purpose of that sort behind it, it would have provided the machinery necessary to prevent the system whereby elections in certain states are carried on in open, fragrant, mo- torious violation of the constitution, and with deliberate and successful intent to make majority rule impos- siblef The statute attempts to de- fine as corrupt things which are not in themselves corrupt. One of the chief senatorial proponents of the measure at the time it was passed, used the franking privilege to flood his state with literature in his own behalf which it would have cost his competition more in postage alone to circulate than the limit of expendi- ture provided for a candidate by the law.
 In the Newberry case no attempt was made to prove corrupt practices. The state was raked and scraped by horde of federal agents in an ef- fort to prove vote buying. During the recount of the votes in progress the claim that there had been fraud by the election boards has collapsed. It was not denied that the administra- tion candidate, Henry Ford, not only ased his business organization throughout the state to boost his can- didacy at cost to his company that would have run into enormous fig ares if Henry had been paying his own bills, but that the administration used the army or government job holders in the state to help the ad- mfral of the peace ark, at the cost to taxpayers of the United States. An attempt by the federal govern