The New York herald., 1922-07-03

No legislative problem furnishes a
more fascinating subject for private
discussion among members of the two
houses of Congress than the use of
money in politics-campaien contribu-
tions.
The complexities of the coming
struggle between the two parties for
the control of either or both legisla-
tive branches presage individual con-
tests in which the use of money may
prove the deciding factor. Unless some
attempt yet lacking is made to clear
up the uncertainties involved in vari-
Gus interpretations of the remnants OF
the corrupt practices law there will
be an "open season for the use Of
money in the coming Congressional
elections.
Statesmen in both houses who face
opposition for denomination and cleo
ton appear to be proceeding on the
theory that the present session Of
Congress will do nothing to repair the
holes punched in the corrupt practices
act by the Supreme Court and At
torncy- General Daugherty.
No Rush for Action.
Wherefore, they are limiting their
discussion of the subject to private
speculation rather than encouraging
agitation in favor of immediate legis-
lation to cover the subject. The con-
.,, fA he 40
under existing conditions a candidate
for the Senate or House can spend
as much money as he or his sup
porters or friendly corporations can
afford to put up without inviting pub
lie condemnation, heavy fine. or the
improbable alternative Of a Jail sem
tence.
In view of the fact that several Of
the Senators who are candidates for
reelection to fill thirty-four seats in
the next Congress privately admit
they will need a lot Of help this
time" there is no great amount Of
enthusiasm for action on bills to meet
the, objections raised against the cor
rupt practices act by the Supreme
Court.
These bills are now before the Privi-
leges and Elections committees Of the
two houses. No move has been made
by the promoters of any Of the meas
ures to obtain the report of and pass
age of them during the present ses-
sion. Whether the matter, which. as
said, is of vital interest to candidates
| for Congress, can be brought up un-
| der present legislative conditions Is
entirely problematical
Move May BE Made Later.
| A move to correct the defects ex-
posed in the corrupt practices act will
undoubtedly be made before Congress
adjourns. But the result of such q
gesture is wholly uncertain. The ten
dency Of Senator's and Representatives
who desire to hold to their seats Ia to
pass the subject to the next Con-
gress and then revise existing laws
relating to the use of money in poll
tics on q permanent basis. In the
meantime many candidates are get
ting ready to take the rubber bands
off their own bankrolls and those OF
their friends.
The Supreme Court took most OF
''the starch" out of the corrupt prac-
tees act by deciding in the Newberry
case that a candidate for the Senate
could not be required to file an ac-
| counting of his expenditures in pri-
mary campaign. The basis for the de-
cision was that the existing law was
predicated on the election OF candi-
dates for the Senate by State Legisla-
lures and that the direct primary
method established by Congress in
validated the provision requiring the
fling OF A statement of campaign ex-
penses with the Senate.
This decision, which unmistakably
exercised a tremendous influence In
winning Mr.. Newberry his disputed
seat. destroyed one of the chief virtues
of the corrupt practices act. Earnest
supporters OF the theory that cam
paisn expenditures should be limited
to $4,000 for Senators and $4,000 fol-
Representatives admitted the neces-
sity for more definite legislative ac-
ton to accomplish desirable reforms
and avert scandals which have pro-
voked a great deal OF trouble for both
parties.
Before any move was made in this
direction, however. Attorney Genera
Daugherty held that the objections
set forth by the Supreme Court ir
the Newberry decision also applied te
expenditures in election contests. The
opinion Of the Attorney General, while
not supported by supreme judicia
judgment, was nevertheless admitted
to be reasonable and probably correct
Mr.. Daugherty's opinion was brought
out by an application for a ruling or
the subject from Representative Luce
(Rep., Mass.). who called the atten.
ton OF the Department of Justice tt
the Supreme Court decision and asked
II 1t did not apply to election dis
bursements as well as expenditures ir
campaigns for denomination.
The Attorney General gave it as hi
judgment that the Supreme Court de-
cision relieved candidates for the Sen
ate of the obligation TO file statements
covering election expenditures, al
though he did not assert judicial au
thority In doing so.
The Supreme Court decision and tn,