Arizona republican., 1922-06-12
MONDAY MORNING. JUNE IL. 1922
When all is summed up, a man
neuer speaks of himself Uithout loss;
has accusations of himself as alacdys
believed, his praises neuer.
-Montaigne.
Election Expenditures

Election Expenditures
A change in the Arizona law regulating campaign
expenditures though requiring accounting, ex-
cudes from the limitation expenditures for advertis
ing printing, and mailing literature regarding ones
candidacy. Under the original law candidate could
not adequately lay before the public his claims for
its suffrage Most candidates however, in disregard
of the limitation, spent much money for the above
items as they could afford and oboquy attached
to for any expenditure unless it involved down
right corruption of voters or unless it appeared to
be extravagantly reckless and prodgal
We recall instance of corruption, that is
OF the actual purchase of votes. Probably there
has been Under the Australian system the
candidate cannot assure himself Of the delivery of
votes He must depend entirely upon the honor
of the corrupted voter-a most slender and broken
reed If the candidate is wise he must appeal to
the intelligence of the play other
weakness than his criminal avarce. He must at any
rate reach him through the eye the ear. The
public prints circulars and follow-up letters have
come to be regarded the most effective instru-
ments in campaigning. They expensive
though and the expense is measured by the number
of voters in ones constituency.
A weakness of the federal corrupt practices act,
even if it had not been unconstitutional, was the
rigidty of the limitation of expenditures the fixing
Of the amount of expenditures by candidate for
United States senator in New York at the same
as candidate in Rhode Island Nevada would be
allowed to pay, though the necessary legitimate
penses of the former would be one hundred times
as great. If the New York candidate were limited
the Nevada sum, he could not make an appeal
to one voter in hundred.
Following the Pennsylvania primary, that distin-
guished blatherskite Senator Pat Harrison Of
Mississippi brayed again in the senate against Gn
ford Pinchots outlay Mr.. Pinchot had filed state
ment of his expenditures. He filed it voluntarily,
for there law requiring him to do so. The
amount we believe about ss70oo paid in great
part for the sending of literature to the voters.
Senator Pat had just sense enough not to accuse
Mr.. Pinchot of corruption but doubt he intended
the ignorant infer that there had been corruption
when he called attention to the expenditure of
large sum.
One of the duties as well as the privileges of
citizenship is attend elections. 1t becomes still
more duty under popular rule for which Senator
Pat in his attack upon Mr.. Pinchot's statement of
expenditures was such stcker, and which he would
have believe exists in such purity in his state
The efficacy of popular rule must be measured by
the proportion of citizens who participate in it.
Now let US descend to figures. The total vote
cast in Pennsylvania in 1920 was 1,S26,417 the pop
ulation of Pennsylvania s,72o017.
The total vote in Arizona ss562; the popu-
lation of Arizona 334162.
The total vote in Senator Pats state was ss4s2;
the population of Senator Pats state was 17so61S
In Pennsylvania of about every five persons
went to the polls and took part in popular rule. AL
most exactly of every five In Arizona voted
But in Mississippi only Of every 20 exercised
the privilege of a popular ruler To have equaled
either Pennsylvania Arizona in the feat of popular
ruling Senator Pats state should have cast not less
than $4,000 votes. Would not campaign of educa-
tion in Mississippi Mr.. Pnchot instituted in
Pennsylvania have contributed to better showing in
the matter of popular rule? Senator Pat with this
record Of his state is hardly competent to speak.
less criticize.
One of the arguments in favor of the direct pri-
mary, we remember, was that it would give every
a chance at office-would put the poor man
on level with rich man. 1t was plain that it
would do no such thing unless there should be a
limitation of campaign expenditures fixed at the
maximum of the ability OF the poor man to pay.
IN all this legislation the purpose Of holding eec-
tions missed. Elections not devised for the
benefit of candidates but for the benefit of the
people. 1t is of popular that the officer
should be a poor a rich To handicap
the latter in the matter of the expenditure of
money would be as senseless as to put handicap
upon the eloquent the magnetic of
opposing candidates by law requiring that they
should present themselves before the people lest
comparison nvidious to the less eloquent or the
less magnetic should be drawn.
The people in the exercise of popular rule should
Re provided with the fullest information regarding
candidates and policies and this information not
be laid before them without the expenditure of
money
The Interaed Debt
Fred l. Kent, vice president of the Bankers