EXPENSIVE CAMPAIGNS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19405, 13 August 1926, Page 11

EXPENSIVE CAMPAIGNS.

HIGH COST OF POLITIOSi. AMERICAN INVESTIGATION. ELECTION COSTING 1600,000. [FROM our own correspondent.] SAN FRANCISCO, July 14. Probably people outside the United States wonder why men spend such enormous sums as the evidence disclosed in the Senatorial investigation into the Pennsylvania! election. About £600,000 is the amount in the record, but Senator James A. Reed, the chairman of the Senate committee, says he believes not more than half the money expended has been mentioned on the witness stand. Soon a similar investigation is to be mado into the cost of the Illinois Senatorial contest, where the sum of £600,000 is alleged to have been spent. The salary of the United States Senator is £2OOO a 'year. Ho serves for a term of six years. When Mr. Truman IT. Newberry, of Michigan, was elected Senator in 1918, and it was proved ho spent a little less than £40,000 in election expenses, the United States Senate refused! to seat him. In Pennsylvania " watcheis " by the thousands were hived at £l2 for election day. One candidate, it is estimated, had 15,000 " watchers " in the Pittsburgh district. No one knows how many political "heelers" were "employed" all over the State. Another strange, and yet natural, outcome of such a deplorable situation was the way the votes wore " counted " in some districts. In one Philadelphia ward the three candidates received votes as follows: '1589, 39, 3. No sane man believes that the votes were actually cast all one way. Another interesting piece of evidence is that. " the machine " only decided to back Mr. William S. Varo, the successful candidate, a short time before the election. If " tAo machine " had decided on one of th«s other candidates, then that candidate would have won. Business Interests. It is alleged that the* money was put up to protect business interests. Mr. Joseph R. Girundy, head of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association, testified that he was " eager to strengthen tho Coolidge-Mell.on lino of economic thought." " Control oi ! . Government influence and Government favours was the stake," says the Milwaukee Journal. The Chicago Daily News puts it this way: " Political control of tli.e State was one prize sought, and revenue legislation Of direct concern to the anthracite coal industry to corporations generally was another." Tho Knoxville Journal takes the other tack, „ arguing thai men in industry work and spend money for tho election of certain men to prevent radical politicians from plundering them, or passing unwise, restrictive lavfs which will injure business. Mr. Samuel Instill, Chicago's millionaire utility magnate is charged with throwing £IOO,OOO behind Mr. Frank L. Smith, Illinois' successful candidate for tho Senate, The reason is said to be that he considered it more profitable to spend money in this way than to lose millions in decreased rates at the hands of unfriendly public officials. It looks as though there will be a thorough house cleaning, a badly-neoded process. Tho people of the country are aroused as never before. It is to bo hoped they will not forget their present good intentions. ' Mr. La Toilette's Suggestion. The Sau Francisco Chronicle says:— Several senators have plans to remedy this condition. Senator La Follette proposes tho conventional method of curing an evil—'pass a law eg'in It.' The La Fol- ' letto measure would limit tho campaign expenses of a Senatorial candidate to £SOOO. When it is considered that this sum would! not buy 2-cont stamps to send one letter to the qualified voters of a State like Pennsylvania, it seems an inadequate allowance. But, when measured against tho salary paid to a Senator, it seems very largo. If a candidate gambled his £SOOO and won, his net profit from £12,000 solary in his six-year term would average less than £I2OO a year.. "Another drawback to the La Follette scheme aid others along the same lines is that while the expenditures of a candidate or of his official campaign committee may be scanned and regulated, the same regulation cannot extend to his friends. There is nothing to stop a candidate's friends from hiring a hall in which to expound his virtues or the causes he espouses;. Any person may plaster, a candidate's face on the billboards. And a candidate might say, and perhaps truthfully, that he had no knowledge of such activities on his behalf." Futility of the Proposal. The newspaper adds:—"Of course, the Senate might serve warnings on candidates and their friends that they would rule out any member whose campaign was shown to have exceeded the limit, whether the candidate knew about the expenditures or not. But that would make political assassination easier and cheaper than ever. If any person or interest were willing to spend as much as £6OOO to beat Mr. La Follette,. for instance, all that would be necessary would be to go into Wisconsin and spend that amount on his behalf. Then the Senate would have to bar him out and let in his rival. "The high cost of campaigning undoubtedly is a vicious element in our political system. It is a menace to the institution of popular government. Prompt and drastic correction probably would pleaise no one more than the candidates, ever; those who spend huge sums in their campaigns. But correction of what the jokesmiihs call 'profiteering by the voters,' is not going to come by way of the La Follette resolution."