XXXII The Democratic congressional committee consists of one member CHAP. from each state. Usually he is a member of the House of Representatives, and if so, is selected by the delegation from that state. But if the state is without a Democratic representative, the committee chairman appoints some one, usually an ex-member, to represent it. The chairman is elected by the committee, and he appoints the other officers, an executive committee, and such other committees as may be needed. Since the adoption of popular election of senators, similar committees have been organized by both parties to assist in the election of party candidates for the Senate. finance tures in campaigns The efficient performance of the work assigned to these various Party party committees, especially in a presidential campaign, involves the collection and disbursement of large sums of money; indeed, their first, and often their principal, task is to raise money, i.e., a "campaign fund." Prior to the campaign of 1920, the maximum expenditures appear to have been made in the "free silver" campaign of 1896. At that time, as the private papers and audited accounts of the late Senator Hanna, Republican national chairman, show, the Republicans raised and spent slightly less than $3,500,000 to help elect President McKinley. No official records of national campaign expenditures were kept, or at least Expendi published, until 1908. But since that date we have something recent more than mere estimate or conjecture to rely on, for full publicity of both contributions and expenditures has either been made voluntarily or, since 1910, required by national law. From these official statements it appears that in 1908 the Democratic national committee expended about $620,000, and the Republican committee, $1,655,518; in 1912, the Democrats spent over $1,300,000, the Republicans, $1,070,000, and the Progressives, over $670,000; in 1916, Democratic disbursements amounted to $1,958,508, those of the Republicans came to $3,829,260; while in 1920, the Democratic national committee spent $1,318,274, and the Republican, $5,319,729. And both committees, in the last-mentioned year, reported a deficit at the end of the campaign. It is to be observed that these large sums were spent by the national committees alone. In addition, the Republican congressional committee spent, in 1920, $375,969, and the Democratic congressional committee, $24,498; at the same time, the Republican senatorial committee expended $326,980, and the corresponding Democratic committee, $6,675. Furthermore, these amounts were 'H. Croly, Marcus Alonzo Hanna, 218-220. СНАР. Some increase clearly legitimate The question of statutory regulation all expended after the national conventions had been held. But in the pre-convention campaign the expenditures by rival aspirants for a presidential nomination also surpassed all known previous records: Democratic aspirants spent the comparatively small sum of $122,000, but among the Republicans, where the competition was far more spirited, the outlay totalled $2,250,000.1 The expenditure of such enormous sums in an effort either to secure a presidential nomination at the hands of a national convention or to enable a party to win the presidential election has been regarded by many as fraught with sinister possibilities for our democratic institutions. Yet it has to be said that almost no evidence has come to light that any considerable portion of these sums was expended in an effort to corrupt the electorate. Indeed, every dollar might easily have been expended in perfectly legitimate ways.2 The fact is that the "cost of living" for candidates and for political organizations has mounted by leaps and bounds in the past few years along with the cost of living for every one else. Campaigning is vastly more expensive nowadays than it used to be. With upwards of fifty million voters to be reached in one way or another, millions of dollars may easily be expended without fully covering the field. In 1912 a little more than fifteen million voters participated in the presidential election. To have sent to every voter only one circular letter, costing five cents each for stationery, postage, and typing, would alone have amounted to $750,000. Since that year the electorate has been more than doubled by the extension of the suffrage to women; so that at least $1,500,000 would now be required for such an item alone. And it scarcely needs to be said that there are countless other ways in which to spend money legitimately. Many people are strongly of the opinion that some thoroughgoing limitation upon national campaign expenditures ought to be established by law. Thus far, however, no satisfactory plan has been advanced. Many states have laws which restrict, in one way or another, the amount of money that may be expended in state campaigns, but thus far Congress has passed only one or In 1920 both pre-convention and national campaign expenditures were subjected to a searching investigation by the Kenyon committee, a sub-committee of the Senate committee on privileges and elections. A large amount of testimony was taken, which is published in two volumes (Washington, 1921). The conclusions of the committee are printed at the end of the second volume. "P. O. Ray, Introduction to Political Parties and Practical Politics (rev. ed.), Chap. x1; H. Parsons, "Why a Political Party Needs Money," Outlook, XCVI, 351-356 (Oct. 15, 1910). XXXII two measures upon the subject. An act of 1910 undertook to CHAP. restrict to five thousand dollars the amount which a candidate for representative in Congress might spend in connection with his nomination and election, and, similarly, to ten thousand dollars the amount which a senatorial candidate might spend, exclusive of personal expenses for travel, subsistence, stationery and postage, and a few other specified items. But the Supreme Court has held this law to be unconstitutional in so far as it applies to expenditures connected with direct primaries. The only other national law on the general subject was passed in 1907 prohibiting contributions by any corporation to any campaign in connection with the election of president, vice-president, senators, and representatives, and also prohibiting corporations created under national law from contributing to any campaign whatsoever.1 Though actual abuses are less numerous and less flagrant-at all events in national elections-than is rather widely supposed, the regulation of the use of money in connection with campaigns and elections is unquestionably one of the most important problems in the field of both national and state politics. Unfortunately, it is a problem for which no satisfactory solution is in sight. REFERENCES A. C. McLaughlin and A. B. Hart, Cyclopedia of American Government (New York, 1914), I, 37-38, American Party; 49-50, Anti-Masonic Party; 565580, Democratic Party; 721-725, Federalist Party; II, 52-53, Free Soil Party; 101, Greenback Party; 348, Liberty Party; 493, National Republicans; 757-758, Populist Party; III, 74, Progressive Party; 77-78, Prohibition Party; 189-201, Republican Party; 338-339, Socialist Party; 680-685, Whig Party. J. A. Woodburn, Political Parties and Party Problems (rev. ed., New York, J. Macy, Party Organization and Machinery (New York, 1904), Chaps. II, III, R. C. Brooks, Corruption in American Politics and Life (New York, 1910), C. A. Beard, Contemporary American History (New York, 1913), Chaps. IV, H. J. Ford, Rise and Growth of American Politics (New York, 1898), Chaps. C. E. Merriam, History of American Political Theories (New York, 1903), X-XII. American Political Ideas, 1865-1917 (New York, 1920), Chaps. 'U. S. Compiled Statutes (1918), pp. 31-34, CHAP. XXXII C. E. Merriam, The American Party System (New York, 1922). A. C. Cole, The Whig Party in the South (Washington, 1912). H. C. Thomas, "The Return of the Democratic Party to Power in 1884," Columbia Univ. Studies in Hist., Econ. and Pub. Law, LXXXIX, No. 2 (1919). P. O. Ray, An Introduction to Political Parties and Practical Polities (rev. ed., New York, 1917). E. Stanwood, A History of the Presidency, 2 vols. (Boston, 1906-16). 8. P. Orth, The Boss and the Machine (New Haven, 1920). PART IV. STATE GOVERNMENT CHAPTER XXXIII IMPORTANCE AND COMMON FEATURES OF THE STATES The power, importance, and prestige of our national government must not be allowed to obscure the fact that practically every citizen of the United States is at the same time a citizen of some state and an inhabitant of a subdivision of a state called a county, and of some fraction of a county called variously a town or township, village, borough, or city. Indeed, no one can understand our federal system of government who is not fully acquainted with the intimate relations existing between the states and the national government; for "the state is the pivot around which the whole American political system revolves." One must always remember that what we call our national government originally resulted from a union of states, and that to-day it rests as truly as ever upon a union of states; hence the significance and appropriateness of the name, the United States of America. Furthermore, the states are the units upon which the great national political parties are organized; the states determine who may vote for representatives and senators in Congress, and for presidential electors; the states mark out the congressional districts from which representatives are sent to Congress, and also prescribe by law the regulations governing the nomination and election of senators, representatives, and presidential electors. Whenever it becomes necessary for the House of Representatives to choose a president, the representatives vote by states, each state having a single vote. Finally, all proposed amendments to the national constitution require ratification by state action before they become effective. In spite of the fact that the states are thus absolutely essential to the successful operation of our national government, surprisingly few citizens know as much about state and local government and politics as about the national government and national politics; The states mental as fundaunits in the Ameri can gov ernmental system |