The midland journal. (Rising Sun, Md.) 1885-1947, 1940-09-27
MONEY In POLITICS

Some political observers suspect that
money also votes. For with only two
or three exceptions, the political
party that has been able to spend
the most money has captured every
Presidential election since 1860.
Moreover, the cost of political
campaigns has grown enormously.
The 1886 campaign, which set an all
time record for lavish expenditure,
cost the Republican and Democratic
National Committees more than IA
million dollars. This outlay was
more than SO times as much as the
two committees expended in 1860.
The hot race of 1912, to come to
more recent times cost the two major
NATIONAL committees only one-sixth
as much as the 1886 campaign.
Nor does that comparison give
full picture of the expensiveness of
modern election drives. Sums spent
by the national committees repre-
sent only small part of the total
outlays made in Presidential cam
paigns. For state, county and local
organizations also spend literally.
AS a result, the cost of the contest
of 1886 was far in excess of the Ia
million dollars reported by the ma
tional committees. The most author
itative estimate placed the total cost
above As million dollars.
1t has been feared in some qaurt-
ers that elections are becoming pleb-
iscites of dollars-decided not by
the will of the majority but by the
money of the few.
Against such alarmist views, sober
students of politics insist that ma
tional elections cannot be bought,
regardless of the amount spent. De-
spite the all-time peak expenditure
made for Landon in 1886, they
point out, despite the fact that Dem
ocrats spent much less, the Repub-
licans succeeded in capturing only
two states. This would seem to sug-
gest that it takes more than money
to swing an election.
Many careful observers, moreover,
are in no way alarmed over the
growth of campaign costs. This they
regard as an inevitable by-product
of the growth of population and per
capita wealth of the United States.
For when campaign expenses are
figured in relation to the number of
votes cast, the cost per vote in
nact oIootiopc appoorc IN ho alp,ock
stationary.
Since 1919, when an official ac-
counting of national committee out
lays was first required by Federal
laws, the increase in campaign costs
has done little more than keep pace
with the increase in the number of
voters.
The only disproportionately large
expenditure since 1912 was the Re-
publican National Committee outlay
in 1886, which came to So cents per
ballot won-more than $8,50O,000
for about 100000 votes. But it
is likely that this spendthrift tao
tic, instead of helping the Republi-
an nominee, played no small part in
his defeat. The hgue financial con-
lritutions, which were dumped in
Landons lap, Unidentified him in the
public mind with the "big-money
e. wd."
But despite such evidence that the
vote of the American people is not
for sale, many liberals have fought
a long hard battle to limit the use
OF money in elections Largely as q
result of their efforts, corporations
and national banks were forbidden
to contribute to political slush funds
by a 1907 act of Congress. The Cor
rupt Practices Act of 1925 prohibit
ed candidates for the Senate from
spending more than $4,000, or
candidates for the House of Repre-
sentatives from spending more than
$4,000.
No curb upon the use OF money in
behalf Of Presidential candidates
was made until July of this year,
when the 1910 Presidential race was
just ready to start. Into the Hatch
"Clean Politics. Act. which prohib-
its 'pernicious political activities"