Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:01:12.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Campaign Funds and Their Regulation in 1936

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

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

Extract

As we enter another presidential contest, it is well to reflect on where we stand with reference to party funds and their public control. So much attention in the past two years has been concentrated on pressing emergency problems that this vital matter of regulating the real springs of public policy has been quite overlooked. But now that we are face to face with the realities of a huge quadrennial plebiscite, careful students of democratic institutions might profitably refresh the memories of voters and legislators and point out the significant facts about campaign funds and their regulation today, particularly those facts which have a bearing on the present situation.

Type
American Government and Politics
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , June 1936 , pp. 507 - 512
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1936

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 Document No. 235. This report also contains a proposed act to carry out the recommendations of the commission relating to political expenses. This act was not passed by the legislature.

2 See Congressional Record, Vol. 75, p. 14059Google Scholar, for the House committee headed by Mr. Ragon, and Vol. 75, p. 15411, for the Senate committee headed by Senator Howell.

3 See Congressional Record, Vol. 78, pp. 12108–12109Google Scholar, for the House committee headed by Mr. Ragon, and Vol. 78, pl. 12017, for the Senate committee headed by Senator Byrnes.

4 Senate Report No. 11, 74th Congress, 1st Session.

5 It should be noted that several bills have been introduced in Congress in the period since 1932. Senator Nye re-introduced the comprehensive measure which his committee had prepared in 1931. This bill, S.1223, 74th Congress, 1st Session, is awaiting the attention of the Senate and can be taken up the moment an active demand for legislation appears. Other bills which have been introduced are Mr. Kvale's bill, H.R.2814, in the 74th Congress, 1st Session, and Mr. Keller's bill, H.R.1622, in the 73rd Congress, 1st Session.

6 See Congressional Record, Vol. 79, pp. 14671 and 15129Google Scholar, for the committee headed by Representative Granfield of Massachusetts; ibid., Vol. 80, pp. 4912–4913 and 5675–5676, for the Senate committee headed by Senator Lonergan of Connecticut.

7 New York Herald Tribune, Nov. 7, 1935.

8 Ibid., Oct. 30, 1935.

9 See this Review, Vol. 27, p. 776.

10 New York Herald Tribune, Nov. 20, 1935.

11 See this Review, Vol. 27, pp. 782–783.

12 See the testimony on remedial legislation taken by the Nye Committee in 1931. Nye Committee, Hearings on Campaign Expenditures, 1931, pp. 3–4Google Scholar.

13 These provisions are found in S.1223, 74th Congress, 1st Session, Sections 2(a), 2(b), 6, and 16.

14 290 U. S. 534.

15 Nye Committee Hearings, 1931, p. 59Google Scholar.

16 S.4422, 70th Congress, 1st Session.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.