The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1927-12-19

ters not exceeding 200 words viii receive
preference.
To the Editor:
Now that the exclusion of Ware
and Smith fron\ the United State
Senate is assured, the next step is
to make certain that no such cor
ruption of the ballot will occur
again.
We need to set by law a limit to
the amount of money that can be
spent in an election for a national
office (Such as Senator or Congress-
mani, and any candidate whose
campaign expenses go beyond that
limit should forfeit his election. To
make that workable every candidate
should be required to appoint an
agent (and sub-agents if necessary,
through whom alone all campaign
expenses would be paid. Nobody
else should be allowed to spend
cent, under severe penalties.
In that way all the money would
pass through the hands of one man,
and the total cost of any campaign
could be actually known and effec-
lively limited.
But what should the limit be?
Obviously, money enough to conduct
campaign in Nevada, with less
than 100000 people, or in Michigan,
oh 100000, would not get far in
Pennsylvania with 100000. OBJ
viously, again, the limit must be
fixed at SO much per inhabitant or
per voter and not at so much per
State.
The present limit set by Federal
law is in fact no limitation at all,
for it allows unlimited spending for
printing, postage and most other
items of campaign cost.
The Pennsylvania committee of
seventy-six, a non-partisan body,
appointed to consider the whole
problem of clean elections after GER
tain frauds by the Ware machine
became known, last year recon-
mended for primary elections a lin
it for all expenditures of every legal
sort equal to ten cents for each vote
cast by the candidates. party at
the last general election for any
Office in the candidates district.
That would result in Pennsylvania,
for example, on the basis of the
election in which Ware ran, in a
limit of $4,000 in a primary cam
paign for the United States Senate.
The same general principle of lin
itation, if not the same specific lin
it, can be applied. of course, to a
general election as well as to a
primary.
The amount of the limit is very
important. If the number of cents
per voter is made too large, the pur-
chase of elections will not be pre-
vented If it is made too small,
an independent candidate could sell
dom or ever win against an organ
lied machine. Since it costs five
cents to send one letter to one voter,
the limit of ten cents would not ap-
pear to be unreasonably high.
The punishment for exceeding the
limit should be loss of the election.
If any candidate Cor his authorized
AGENT, spends money beyond the
legal limit, or for any purpose not
allowed by law, his nomination or
election should be void. The point
Is to make any candidate who cheats
lose the Office he cheated to get.
If a candidate is guilty of fraud
or of conniving at fraud, in that case
also he should lose the Office he
cheated to get. That will be far
better deterrent than merely put
ting some crooked minor election
official in jail, desirable as that is
also.
Other things are necessary, such
as requiring all contributions and
expenditures larger than, say, $500
to be made by check; preventing
number of candidates running to-
gether 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
buying or stealing elections unprof1t-
able. A man who buys or steals
votes to win an election should lose
it even if he wins.
A bill embodying the foregoing
principles is in preparation and will
shortly be introduced in Congress.
If you care to do so, would be
glad to have you make any use you
please of this letter on Monday,
Dec. 10, or on any later day.
Sincerely yours,
CLIFFORD PINCHOT.