Evening star., 1926-06-12
PROBE MAY LOWER
PRIMARY EXPENSES
Publicity Given Money Spent
in Pennsylvania May De-
veIop Sentiment.
by DAVID LAWRENCE.


The public may be shocked to learn
that nearly S2000.000 was spent in
Pennsylvania by all the candidates for
the Republican nomination for United
States Senator and Governor-but
the politicians here are not surprised
The only surprise is the candor and
frankness of the witnesses. And
while it is too early to assess all the
effects of the revelation. it can be said
even at this date that a distinct
public service has been fulfilled by the
investigation.
For the high cost of modern cleo
tons has been too little realized by
the public. And il would not be at all
diSpleaSing to most OF the political
folks here if one of the results of the
investigation was to bring about "a
complete change of mind on the part
of many people toward the primary
election system. Final elections them
selves are expensive anyway, but the
added cost Of "a primary campaign
is something under which aspirants
to public office have been staggering
for the last 10 years.
Laws Got Around.
1t is no exaGgeration to say that.
as compared With the money spent III
PENNSYLVANIA TO name Il state ticket
cOincident with Il senatorial nght,
there have been proportionately large
expenditures in many other States OF
the Union. The laws of the States re
quiring publicity of campaign eN-
penditures are easily circumvented.
And We're it not for the fact that the
witnesses from Pennsylvania frankly
told about the state campaign the
Senate investigating committee would
have had no right whatever to in
terrogate them about strictly State
matters. The Supreme Court has
held that Congress cannot pass laws
regulating campaign expenditures in
primary elections, even though a
United States Senator iS running for
office. This has effectually blocked
all attempts heretofore at limitation
Of campaign expenses.
It is a we'll known fact among poll
ticians that the dual system OF gov
ernment in America permits many
abuses in the financing of political
campaigns. The faVorita device of
national political organizations. es-
pecially in presidential campaigns Is
to encourage the State organization
to raise large sums OF money OS-
tensibly for the election OF State
tickets. But it is difficult to draw the
line between the work done for a
candidate for Il State office and a
candidate for national office. In this
way a presidential candidate may
actually have had spent in his behalf
in the entire Nation not more than
three or four million dollars, while
in the several States there may have
been as high as fifteen to twenty
million dollars expended which aided
the national ticket
Battle Was i'm state.
Just the reverse process was in
effect in Pennsylvania. The real
battle, as revealed by the witnesses,
was for control of the State govern
ment at Harrisburg. Joseph Z.
Grundy, president of the Pennsylvania
Manufacturers Association, who
underworld nearly 100000 of the
money spent to nominate John Fisher
as governor, and in the attempt to
nominate George w. Pepper as
Senator, frankly admitted that he was
not much interested in Mr.. Pepper
but wanted to make sure that gov
ernor was elected whose attitude on
the taxation of corporations would
not be disadvantageous Conversely
a great many business men sup
ported Representative Wares candi
udcE 1Or O0lleu STATES SeUdtOT De
cause they believed he might develop
into a Penrose, who could control
Harrisburg and Washington combined
80 far as Pennsylvania interests were
concerned.
Until the several States make laws
forbidding the payment of watchers
at the polls and otherwise represSlnS
extravaganza in campaign eXpendi-
lures, the experience in Pennsylvania
this year will continue to be encoun-
tered in other States. The totals
may be lower. but the proportion
will be very much the same. Unof-
fetal campaign committees can be or
ganized by friends of the candidates,
and no accounting is usually insisted
upon. The amount spent by the can
didate himself and the committee over
which he has jurisdiction cannot be
q drop in the bucket so far as the
total actually spent in a campaign.
Might Refuse Seat.
The Senate can, if it chooses. re-
fuse a seat to any one who spends
a large sum of money in either a
primary or a final election, but usu-
ally this is attempted only when there
is evidence of fraud. Is the selection
of watchers at the polls at $40 a day
a fraud, especially if 40 or 80 thou
sand watchers are employed? Until
now the employment of watchers has
not been frowned upon and has been
considered legitimate. Also the pri-
mary system has brought in many
other forms of expenditure. Should
therefore, the primary system be
abolished? Pennsylvania is in a sense
like the Southern States. The pri'
mary is the real election. for a Re
publican nomination is equivalent to
election in the keystone State, just
as Democratic nomination In the
South is usually ratified in the Au-
tumn election.
The Senate is beginning to talk
about finding a way to limit eXpendl
lures, and there will be agitation to
change the primary system OF cleo
ton, but for the immediate future II
is hardly probable that the inVesti
CATION will do any more than furnish
a Justification for relatively smaller
but inevitably legitimate expenditures
in other States of the Union.
Copyright 1926,
--e----~