board appointed by Congress might escape this suspicion.

Any appropriation of state funds for campaign purposes would also be objected to on grounds of principle. It is not considered a misfortune, for example, that a philanthropic, educational, or religious association must appeal to the public for contributions. On the contrary this very necessity forces the managers of such organisations to keep the service of the public constantly in view. Fully endowed charities, schools, and churches, on the other hand, have a notorious tendency to develop the dry rot or to degenerate into positive nuisances. It is possible that even if our two great parties were guaranteed support from state funds the keen rivalry between them might preserve them from deterioration. Still the logic of events may at any time demand the disbandment of a given political party. If at such a juncture it were assured a large subsidy, equal to or approximating that of the majority party, it might outlive its usefulness indefinitely, maintaining its organisation and a numerous body of adherents simply in order to devour the congressional appropriation provided for its useless campaign work.

There is one form of campaign expenditure, however, which the state may well assume and seek to extend, namely that incurred for performing any service offered equally to all parties. Already public provision is made for the rent of polling

places, the salaries of election officials, the printing of ballots, and some other expenditures of a similar character. Legal regulation of the primary and convention system, such as has been undertaken on a large scale within the last decade, offers opportunities for the payment of certain preliminary expenses in the same way. In connection with its referendum elections Oregon has begun to print and distribute at public expense documents containing the substance of the laws to be voted on, supplemented by brief arguments drawn up by adherents of both sides.1 So far as this principle can be extended the real need for campaign contributions from private citizens or corporations will be reduced. Thus without going the length of placing the whole burden of campaign expenditures upon the state, experimentation may well be undertaken with various combinations of the mixed system. If found advisable the relative amount of the state's contribution may then be increased from time to time.

While the work of parties at the present time must be conceded to be essential and on the whole useful, the argument for their entire support by the state is still far from being made out. There is, as we have seen, a certain virtue in the very necessity under which parties labour of applying to the people for contributions. Normally it should

1Cf. also the Oregon law proposed by initiative petition and adopted June 1, 1908.

have the effect of keeping the parties closer in interest to the people. It is highly improbable that the question of campaign funds would ever have been raised in American politics if party contributions were habitually made by a large number of persons each giving a relatively small amount. If in addition the donors were inspired by patriotic motives only and never sought to procure corrupt favours through their contributions such a system would be well nigh ideal. With all the abuses that have sprung up in this connection it is probably true that by far the larger number of the contributors to our campaign funds have been of the better type just described, although, of course, the same judgment would hardly be expressed with regard to the greater portion of the total amounts contributed. Under a system of small contributions from a large number of people it would matter little even if some of the contributors were not wholly disinterested. The relatively small proportion of the total sum represented by any individual subscription would make it absurd for the donor to claim corrupt favours of importance. It is not so much the campaign contribution itself that has fallen into disrepute among us as the secrecy involving the whole subject and the belief that large corporate contributions have been repaid by corrupt favours. Short of public subsidies, therefore, most of the advocates of reform in this field content themselves with the demand for pub

licity and certain restrictions as to the collection and expenditure of campaign funds.

The movement for publicity was preceded by much vigorous legislation against the bribery of voters and other abuses at the ballot-box, but as these subjects have been abundantly discussed elsewhere they need only incidental mention here. New York led in the movement for publicity proper with a law passed in 1890 (ch. 94), requiring candidates to file statements of their expenditures. This act was very ineffective, no publicity being required for the expenses of election committees. Most of the laws subsequently passed have brought campaign committees as well as candidates specifically under regulation. By the end of 1908, more than twenty states altogether had taken some action looking toward the publicity of expenditures. The earlier laws of this character were very loosely drawn. In many cases they simply required "statements," and the results obtained were distinguished chiefly by gross inadequacy and heterogeneity. Later statutes and amendments, however, have fixed the form of reports precisely, itemising them in considerable detail. Wisconsin, for example, furnishes blanks especially prepared for this purpose. Vouchers for all sums exceeding five or ten dollars are required in a number of states. Publicity of receipts is not

1

1New York now requires full reports from committees also (ch. 502, L. 1906).

so commonly prescribed as publicity of expenditures. Reports of contributions were first required by Colorado and Michigan in 1891, followed by Massachusetts in 1892, California in 1894, Arizona in 1895, and Ohio in 1896. Repeals of the laws first passed in Ohio and Michigan indicate that they were somewhat ahead of public sentiment at the time, although they would hardly be so regarded now. In this connection the New York law of 1906 (ch. 502), was an event of first class importance. It compels political committees to file detailed statements of receipts as well as expenditures, and provides for judicial investigation to enforce correct statements. The great weight of the name of the Empire State is thus placed squarely behind the demand for real publicity of receipts. Under this act, voluntarily accepted by the national chairmen in 1908, publicity was given to the finances of a presidential campaign for the first time in the history of the country.

In the national field the nearest approach to legislation prescribing publicity for campaign contributions was made by a bill (H. R. 20112) introduced into the House of Representatives in 1908. Briefly this bill covered both expenditures and contributions of the national and the congressional campaign committees of all parties, and of "all committees, associations, or organisations which 1Iowa, L. 1907, ch. 50, followed New York's example.