Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-01-11
EXCESSIVE USE OF FUNDS
TO WIN OFFICE HIT BY NYE
Senator Hopes for Public Revolt at
Practice, He Tells Radio
Forum Audience.

himself being hopelessly counted out.
The public saw the advertising and
energy being devoted by agents in be-
half of the two candidates and i'm
mediately concluded, why, this third
man hasn't a chance. He is not able
to compete with these other two cam
didates; don't want to vote for
losing candidate; it is for me to choose
between the two" The facts were
only a matter Of $4,000 or $4,000 to
use in the conduct of his campaign,
while the other two candidates were
spending much in excess of this. one
having spent we'll in excess of $500, 900.
So, here We have the case then OF q
man defeated before ballot was
dropped in the box debated because in
the public mind he couldn't hope to
compete in the matter of expenditures
of money: very clear example of how
near we are to that day when it must
be concluded that man without means
is a plain waSter to entertain even the
ambition to represent the people of his
State In the United States Senate. Does
this rot in itself clearly depict the VIC
ious influence of money in our political
life?
Big Funds Discouraged.
The Senate by resolution in 1922 voted
its positive displeasure with large cam
paign expenditures and put its foot
down against them. When 1t was re-
vealed that Newberry of Michigan had
expended approximately Sl95, 900 in the
conduct of his campaign to win election
to the Senate there was indignation.
On the strength of his expenditures his
right to seat in the Senate was chal-
lenged. His seat was saved to him only
after the Senate had in effect given
notice to candidates of the future that
the Senate would deny seats to those
making expenditures like that made by
Newberry. In its resolution, to which
have referred, the Senate said that
$4,000 was too large, much larger
than ought to have been expended" And
then the resolution went on with this
language, "the expenditure of such ex-
ceSSive sums in behalf of a candidate,
either with or without his knowledge
and consent being contrary to sound
public policy harmful to the honor and
dignity of the Senate and dangerous to
the perpetuity Of free government, such
excessive expenditures are hereby severly
condemned and disapproved
- Dangerous to the perpetuity of free
government" said the Senate in 1922 OF
expenditures of $195,o0O 1t is danger
Gus to the future of a free government
to permit such sums of money to be used
in electing men to places where they are
expected to represent the interests of all
the people. The Senate has In the
years since that action denied seats in
the Senate TO men who have expended
excessive sums of money. Smith of
Illinois was denied seat in the Senate
not alone because of the source of money
expended in mis- behalf, but because Of
the size of his expenditure.
Refused Seat TO Ware.
The Senate denied a seat to Ware of
Pennsylvania, who in 1925 expended
somewhere in the neighborhood of $780,
600 in the conduct of his campaign.
In furtherance Of its desire to check
huge expenditures in winning election to
the Senate, the Senate itself last Spring
authorized the appointment of a COM
mittee to investigate into the conduct of
senatorial campaigns and to ascertain
the amounts expended by and for can