Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-12-19
Election Funds Viewed.
Mr.. Pinchot Discusses Results of
Vare-Smith Case.
To the Editor OF The Star:


Now that the exclusion Of Ware
and Smith from the United STATES
Senate is assured. the next step is TO
make certain that no such corruption
of the ballot will occur again.
We need to set by law limit TO the
amount of money that can be spent
in an election for national ONCE
isuch as Senator or Congressman
and any candidate whose campaign
expenses go beyond that limit should
forfeit his election. To make that
workable every candidate should be re-
quired to appoint an agent tand SUD
agents if necessary through wnon
and through whom alone all campaign
expenses would be paid. Nobody else
should be allowed to spend a cent
under severe penalties.
In that way. all the money wouio
pass through the hands OF one man
and the total cost of any campaign
could be actually known and enecuVe-
ly limited.
But what should the limit be? Oo-
viously, money enough to conduct
campaign in Nevada, with less tnan
100000 people. or in Michigan, win
4, 100000, would not get far in Penn
sylvania, with 100000. Obviously
again, the limit must be fixed at so
much per inhabitant or per voter anu
not at so much per State.
The present limit set by Federal law
is in fact no limitation at all, Tor IL
allows unlimited spending for print
ing, postage and most other items OIL
campaign cost.
The Pennsylvania committee OF TO-
a non-partisan body, appointed 10 con-
slider the whole problem of clean eiec-
IN nd hIy
machine became known, last year
recommended for primary elections
limit for all expenditures of every
legal sort equal to 10 cents for eacn
vote cast by the candidates party at
the last general election for any once
in the candidates district. That would
result. in Pennsylvania, for example
on the basis OF the election in Wnlch
Ware ran, in a limit of $4,000 In
primary campaign for the Oniteo
States Senate.
The same general principle OF hml-
tation, if not the same specific limit,
can be applied, of course, to a generai
election as we'll as to primary.
The amount of the limit is very I'M
portant. If the number of cents per
voter is made too large the purchaSe
of elections will not be prevented. II
it is made too small an Independent
candidate could seldom or never WIN
against an organized machine. since
it costs 5 cents to send one letter -
one voter, the limit Of 10 cents Woulu
not appear to be unreasonably niSn;
The punishment for exceeding the
limit should be loss of the election;
If any candidate Tor his authorized
agent spends money beyond the iesa.
limit. or for any purpose not aiioWeu
by law, his nomination or electioh
should be void. The point is to MAKE
any candidate who cheats lose the ol'
fee he cheated to get.
If a candidate is guilty of frauo OF
of conniving at fraud, in that case
also he should lose the office he cneat-
ed to get. That will be a far peter
deterrent than merely putting some
crooked minor election official In JAZZ
desirable as that is also.
Other things are necessary, sucn an
requiring all contributions ana ex'
penditures larger than. say, So 70 %
made by check. preventing a numpeS
of candidates running together as one
ticket from spending more than one
candidate running alone as one ticket,
and complete publicity OF campaign
expenses.
But the main thing Is to make buy.
ing or stealing elections Improbable.
man who buys or steals votes TO
win an election should lose 1t, even
IL he wins.
/ A bill embodying the foregoing prin.
ciples is in preparation and will short.
ly be introduced in Congress.
CLIFFORD PINCHOTs