Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:19:32.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Campaign Funds in 1928

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

James K. Pollock Jr.
James K. Pollock Jr.*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the important political year 1928 no fewer than five separate congressional committees were engaged in investigating various phases of the problem of campaign funds. First, the Reed committee, which was appointed by resolution of the 69th Congress to investigate the elections of 1926, was continued in existence so that it could wind up its work. In addition, it was given authority by a new resolution of the 70th Congress to investigate the New Jersey senatorial primary of 1928. Second, the committee on privileges and elections of the Senate was authorized to hear and determine the Wilson-Vare election contest in Pennsylvania. A sub-committee, with Senator Waterman as chairman, was selected on January 27 to perform this task. Third, the Senate created a special committee to investigate pre-convention and election expenditures in the campaign of 1928. Senator Steiwer was appointed chairman of this committee. Fourth, a special House committee was appointed on the day before the close of the session to look into the campaign expenditures of 1928, with Congressman Lehlbach of New Jersey as chairman. Finally, the Senate by resolution authorized the committee on post offices and post roads, or any sub-committee thereof, to investigate the alleged sale of Southern postmasterships, and Senator Brookhart was appointed chairman of the sub-committee.

The Reed committee held hearings in April and May in connection with the Wilson-Vare contest in Pennsylvania, and in June in connection with the New Jersey senatorial primary. These investigations did not lead to any particularly valuable disclosures, although they produced some interesting and enlightening information about the Vare machine.

Type
American Government and Politics
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , February 1929 , pp. 59 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1929

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Senate Resolutions 10 and 178 of the 70th Congress continued in full force and effect the following Senate resolutions of the 69th Congress: 195, 227, 258, and 324.

2 Senator Caraway offered the resolution (Senate Resolution 232) on May 16 which authorized the Reed committee to look into the New Jersey primary. The members of the Reed committee are: Reed, McNary, Goff, La Follette, and King.

3 Senate Resolution 68. The committee is as follows: Waterman, Steiwer, Moses, Caraway, and Bratton.

4 Senate Resolutions 214 and 234. By Senate Resolution 255 this same committee was authorized to investigate war-time sugar transactions. The members of the committee are: Steiwer, Dale, McMaster, Barkley, and Bratton.

5 House Resolution 232. Mr. Snell, in offering the resolution, stated that the committee “would not go snooping around the country prying into a person's private affairs.” The investigation, he said, was not to be a general one, but was only to be concerned with those cases which the committee felt necessary to treat. The following are members of the committee: Lehlbach, Newton (resigned when he was appointed chairman of the Western speakers bureau of the Republican national committee), Nelson of Maine, Ragon of Arkansas, and Black of New York.

6 Senate Resolution 193.

7 See the Hearings of the committee in these connections.

8 No Hearings have as yet been printed.

9 Hearings, Special Senate Committee Investigating Presidential Campaign Expenses, Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4. Part 4, pp. 1095–1129, contains a statistical summary of the receipts and expenditures made by or on behalf of the candidates for the Republican and Democratic presidential nominations during the pre-convention period.

10 The committee did announce to the press that it was contemplating further investigations into the political expenditures of several political organizations, but to date these investigations have not occurred.

11 Mention should be made of the Hearings before the Senate committee on public lands under Senate Resolution 101. Part 2 of these Hearings contains a great deal of interesting testimony relating to campaign funds, including Mr. Hays' after-thoughts. Evidence is given showing how party deficits were handled in previous years and how loans were made. A New Jersey legislative investigating committee, under the chairmanship of Senator Clarence E. Case, has been delving into the politics of Hudson county. Some of the inside workings of the Hague machine have been uncovered. At one session of the committee Senator Case, from the available testimony, showed that approximately $370,000 was raised in Hudson county annually from political assessments.

12 H. J. Res. 277.

13 By reporting out this bill the Senate judiciary committee puts itself on record as favoring the proposal to amend the present corrupt practices act by extending its terms to include primary elections. In the report the committee, through Senator Caraway, argued that it is not necessary to amend the Constitution in order to give Congress jurisdiction over primary elections. The committee indicated that the Newberry decision is no bar to Congressional action to extend the terms of the corrupt practices act to include the nominating process. In 1925, when the present act was passed, the Senate was afraid to regulate nominations. Today its judiciary committee, through a carefully worded bill which makes it perfectly clear that the Senate considers the nominationprocess as an inseparable part of the election machinery by which members are sent to Congress, has taken an opposite but a better position. See S. 4179 and Senate Report No. 895.

14 See S. 3914, S. 3971, and S. 3972 introduced by Senator Shipstead; S. 825 by Senator Hawes; and S. Res. 129 by Senator Neely. Also H. R. 6101, 12770, 12905, 12906, 12907.

15 S. J. R. 149, S. J. R. 150, S. 4422, S. 4423, and S. 4424 are the measures referred to. These contain many excellent provisions, including one providingfor the creation of an election commission, and others which would eliminate several of the loopholes in the present law. See Congressional Record, vol. 69, pp. 8718–8728 (May 11, 1928)Google Scholar.

16 The other occasion when the Democrats expended more money than the Republicans to elect a president was in 1912. But in that year the Republicans were divided, and the Democratic outlay, although larger than that of the regular Republicans, was not as large as the combined Republican and Progressive funds. The Democratic disbursements in 1912 amounted to the modest sum of $1,134,848.00. See my Party Campaign Funds, p. 27, for a table showing the accounts of the national committees of the two parties since 1912.

17 A somewhat confusing but entirely justifiable system of collecting money was used by the Republicans. Mr. Nutt, the Republican treasurer, acted as agentnot only for the national committee but also for the state committees. Thus, two solicitations of the same persons for two committes were rendered unnecessary. Part of a contribution could be earmarked for the national committee and part for a state committee. The figure given above for the Republican national committee represents only the money received and spent directly for the national committee. To include the funds collected for the state committees would result in making an inaccurate comparison with the Democratic national committee fund.

18 The writer's opinion in this regard has been strengthened after a year's study abroad observing the use of money in English, French, and German elections.

19 The largest single contributions were made by W. F. Kenny and John J. Raskob, who gave $100,000 each to the Democratic national committee. There were several other Democratic contributions which were larger than the largest single Republican contribution, which was made by W. H. Crocker in the sum of $830,000.

20 The Democratic national committee donated $500,000 to carry on the campaign in the Western farm states, and $125,000 to the Smith Colored League to work among the negroes of northern cities.

21 In 1924 the Republican surplus amounted to $355,000, the largest ever recorded. In 1928 the surplus was $285,637.20.

22 See Hearings, Senate Committee on Public Lands, pursuant to S. Res. 101, 70th Congress, Parts 2 and 3. (Leases upon Naval Oil Reserves.)

23 New Jersey has taken such action. Article XXIX, Par. 514, Sec. 24, of the election laws states: “No campaign manager, …. shall authorize …. the incurring of any expense …. unless there are moneys on deposit in the bank selected in accordance with the provisions of this act, to the credit of the account known as the campaign fund ….” I have not been able to investigate the operation of this provision.

24 The senatorial and congressional campaign committees were financed largely by their national committees. The Republican senatorial committee received $116,000 from the national committee, while the congressional committee received $228,500 from the same source. The Democratic senatorial and congressional committee expenditures were not large.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.