Evening star., 1950-02-23
The Political Mil
u. S. Election Costs
Are Still Very High.
Comparison Made With
British Expenditures
The Political Mil
By Gould Lincoln

The high cost of elections in the
United States has periodically been the
subject Of attack. The various corrupt
practices acts, including the Hatch Act
the most recent of the statutes-may
have put check on these ever-mounting
expenditures in political campaigns, but
the cost OF national election is still tre-
mendously high. Compare it, for ex-
ample. to the cost Of national election
campaign In England-which has lust
taken place.
Under the strict British election laws
one political party with a Candidate for
each Of the 625 seats In the House of
Commons is limited to 81 .087 500 for
campaign purposes. This is made up as
follows: each candidate in "constitu-
ency," whether county" or borough"
may spend $50 pounds, about 81 $50. nlus
ABOUT cent for each registered voter. If
80 million are registered voters then it
ADDS approximately 100000 to the sum
Of 625 times 1880. Treble the total and
you have about So million, and probably
FAR less was spent.
Take a look at the reported" expendi-
lures reported by IA organizations par
ticipating In the 1948 national campaign
IN the United States. The total was
$l3,563,S78. These reports came from the
political committees of all parties with
candidates In the field and from labor
groups and other groups such as the
Americans for Democratic Action. These
are reports OF committees Individual ex-
penditures, it is believed, run the total
election costs much, much higher.
Charges "Look Silly"
Although President Truman, like his
predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, has
sought constantly to pin the label of
special interests s"-wealthy interests-on
the Republican Party, an examination
OF the contributions made by the So
called "fat cats" to the G. o. P. and to
the Democratic Party makes such charges
look silly.
A recent and exhaustive survey of poll
tical contributions, made by Congress
slonal Quarterly shows that these fat
cats are warming themselves in the
Democratic corner. In the "off year"
1949-when only few Statewide elec-
tions and handful of Congressional
elections to fill vacancies were held-con-
trlbutions reported by the Democratic
committees totaled 81 ,477,4 ,427, and by the
Republican committees, $661 ,804.
The big contributors, too, were on the
Democratic side, overwhelmingly. For
contributions of 81 900 or more made UP
about one-sixth of the total intake Of
money by the Republicans and about
one-third Of the total intake by the
Democrats The list of these big con-
tr1butors to the Democratic Party showed
the names OF many induStrialists as we'll
as OF some of the wealthy members of
the diplomatic corps And the Demo-
cratic list made the Republican list puny
by comparison.
Many Big Contributions.
Why do these people of wealth now
contribute to war chests of the Demo-
cratic Party? Is 1t for favors they hope
to receive from an administration that is
doing billions of dollars worth of busi-
ness? Is it because of fear of a shake
down? Or is it just for love of the
Democratic Party and President Tru-
man? There were 300 contributions by
individuals ranging from $1,000 to SIS, 900
each, made to the Democratic National
Committee.
During 1949, the expenditures by the
political committees, especially the Demo-
cratic and Republican National Commit
tees, were largely for the maintenance
OF their party headquarters and staff
now permanent, all the year round or
ganizations of considerable size. With a
congressional election coming up this
year, the contributions and expenditures
for the campaign will be tremendously
increased. The labor groups have prom
ised to spend millions to defeat Senator
Taft of Ohio and other members of
Congress who have incurred their wrath.