Evening star., 1935-12-06
CANT PA|GN FUND
/. PRECEDENT IS SET
Akron Trio Place Farley on
Spot by Refund Pro-
posal.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

Wendell Wilkie, power man, who
said he regretted contributing to the
Roosevelt campaign, and who AYERS
that he has always been a Democrat.
answered the Akronites, who offered
him his $3.50, by saying he hoped they
would arrange to give back campaign
contributions to all others who were
disappointed.
Now, Mr.. Wilkie may have q griev-
ance. The Democratic national plat
form Of 1892 called for regulation"
of holding companies and not destruc-
ton. But most of those campaign
contributors who are disappointed
with the New Deal will not have such
clear case. In fact, it raises very
interesting question Of whether q
campaign contribution in any way
binds the candidate to give heed to
the wishes of the contributors.
It would be very enlightening to
find out what it is that motivates
most campaign contributors. Some
of them have got from the New Deal
the diplomatic posts they hoped for.
Others have acquired positions Of in
fiuence for their law practice which
have enabled them to cash in on
their friendliness to the New Deal.
Still others have had their businesses
harassed just the same, though they
may have had an idea they were
getting a sort of immunity by con-
tributing to the Roosevelt fund.
Many Are Disappointed.
Certain it is that Mr.. Roosevelt
never had any understanding with
his campaign contributors, no matter
how exuberant may have been the
promises of the lieutenants. The big
business men who contribute to po-
litical parties thinking it will gain
them some special favor In Washing
ton are usually disappointed and dis
illusioned, but they continue to do 1t
| Just the same.
The whole theory Of campaign con-
tributions is wrong, and the lesson
in the Wilkie incident Is that the
Roosevelt administration ought not
accept in 1886 a single dollar from
any business or industry for the SIM
ple reason that 1t cannot possibly
guarantee immunity from attack in
its program Of Government super
vision of industry or from govern
mental attack on bigness.
In other words, the New Dealers
ought to be free from any misunder-
standing as to the meaning OF cam
paign contributions, and they ought
to be the first to refuse money from
the high-salaried executives Of pres
ent-day business or their friends or
relatives. Indeed, the so-called rich
of the country will only be putting
the New Deal in an awkward posi-
ton by offering money to help re-
elect Mr.. Roosevelt.
The fortnight thing for Postmaster
| General Farley. who Is Democratic
national chairman, to do Is to an
nounce that he doesn't want any con-
tributions from any business man who
directly or indirectly may be affected
by governmental legislation. There
| are some business men who have con-
| tracts with the Government or who
profit indirectly by Government busi-
ness of one kind or another. These
men are natural prospects" for the
alert campaign collector. but it would
seem to be unethical to ask these
business men to contribute or to ac-
cept their contributions, even If Of
fered.
Mere Chicken Feed
The Republican party. of course,
has always been known as the party
Of big business, and nothing ap-
parently that the Republicans can do
will erase the impression that their
contributors control the party. Hence,
it is quite likely that the Republican
war chest viii be well filled. The
amounts may run into three to five
millions of dollars, but this Is
chicken feed" alongside Of the s4,-
10000, 600 fund the New Dealers have
had for the purpose of relief but
which has been used just the same to
influence votes.
The Democrats can afford this year
to scorn the contributions of business
men because they control government
al machinery and governmental funds.
The last elections showed how these
fayors can be translated into benefits
at the polls.
The use of public or private funds
for political purposes, other than cir
cularization or the expenses of pre-
senting the issues, is not justified, but
both the Republican and Democratic
parties would be better off if the rank
and f1le Of both parties paid the bulk
OF the expenses and If the contribu-
tions were limited to small amounts.
The old method has been to accept
large amounts, and the Roosevelt
campaign fund of 1882 included In
dividual gifts that were as large If
not larger than had been given by q
similar number of men In Republican
campaigns. Thus, contributions in ex-
cess Of 10000 were by no means few
on the Roosevelt side.
Bet on Wrong Horse.
Some Of these contributors gave
their money because they frankly had
no use for Hoover "vacillation" or Gin
decision" and they wanted more ag-
gressive policies. They got it. They
also got some attacks on their own
businesses. Also, some inroads we're
made into their incomes, all Of which
make them feel they bet on the
wrong horse.
There's no obligation resting upon
the Roosevelt Campaign Committee to
give back what it collected, but the
Akronites really have done Chairman
Farley q disservice by bringing the
matter up, for some overzealous
Democrat may even get the notion
now to sue the Democratic National
Committee for breach of contract In
failing to i've up to the 1892 platform,
which Mr.. Roosevelt himself accepted
at 100 per cent of its value in the
campaign, only to disregard its prin-
cipal provisions after he was inaugu-
rated.
Copyright. 1850