CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND PUBLICITY, WITH REFERENCE TO RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES. Much has been said during the past few weeks upon the question of campaign contributions and publicity with reference thereto. A careful analysis, however, of the utterances and pledges of the two candidates, the two National committees, and the law makers of the two parties upon this subject shows that the Democratic promises have been in all cases vague and specious and in such terms as to really supply little of the publicity which they purport to supply; while the Republicans have already actually prohibited, through Republican legislation in Congress, corporation contributions to campaign funds and provided for absolute publicity far in excess of that vaguely promised by the Democratic candidate and committee. The Bryan-Taft Correspondence on Publicity. The public campaign for publicity was begun by Mr. Bryan, when on May 27, 1908, he sent to Mr. Taft the following telegram: "I beg to suggest that, as leading candidates in our respective parties, we join in asking Congress to pass a bill requiring publication of campaign contributions prior to election. If you think best we can ask other candidates to unite with us in the request. To this Mr. Taft replied on May 26th: Your telegram received. On April 30th last, I sent the following letter to Senator Burrows, the Chairman of the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate: "My dear Mr. Burrows: I sincerely believe that it would greatly tend to the absence of corruption in politics if the expenditures for nomination and election of all candidates and all contributions received and expenditures made by political committees could be made public, both in respect to State and National politics. For that reason I am strongly in favor of the passage of the bill which is now pending in the Senate and House, bringing about this result so far as national politics is concerned. I mark this letter personal because I am anxious to avoid assuming an attitude in the campaign which it is quite possible I shall never have the right to assume, but so far as my personal influence is concerned I am anxious to give it for the passage of the bill. Very sincerely yours, WILLIAM H. TAFT. Since writing the above, in answer to inquiry, I have said publicly that I hoped such a bill would pass. Corporation Contributions. The next step in the Democratic campaign with reference to election funds was the insertion in their platform adopted at Denver in July, 1908, of the following plank: We pledge the Democratic party to the enactment of a law prohibiting any corporation from contributing to the campaign fund and any individual from contributing an amount above a reasonable amount and providing for the publication before election of all contributions above a reasonable minimum. In taking this second step with reference to campaign funds and pledging the Democratic party to the enactment of a law prohibiting any corporation from contributing to the campaign fund, Mr. Bryan and his associates seem quite as late as Mr. Bryan was personally in his proposal to Mr. Taft, since it is a fact that the Republican party in Congress had, more than a year before the meeting of the Democratic convention, passed in both houses and enacted into law the very proposition which the Democracy pledged themselves to accomplish, viz.: "prohibiting any corporation from contributing to a campaign fund." The law enacted by a Republican House and a Republican Senate in January, 1907, and signed by a Republican President on January 26, 1907, did the very thing demanded by the Democratic convention of 1908, and did it eighteen months prior to the meeting of that convention. The Act passed in January, 1907, by a Republican House and a Republican Senate and signed by a Republican President January 26, 1907, is as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall be unlawful for any national bank or any corporation organized by authority of any laws of Congress to make a money contribution in connection with any election to any political office. It shall also be unlawful for any corporation whatever to make a money contribution in connection with any election at which Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors or a Representative in Congress is to be voted for or any election by any State Legislature of a United States Senator. Every corporation which shall make any contribution in violation of the foregoing provisions shall be subject to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and every officer or director of any corporation who shall consent to any contribution by the corporation in violation of the foregoing provisions shall upon conviction be punished by a fine of not exceeding one thousand and not less than two hundred and fifty dollars, or by imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, of both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court. Thus in the second step in the Democratic campaign with reference to political funds, they find themselves following along lines in which the Republicans had already taken action. Publicity Before Election, Not only had the Republicans, long before this recommendation of the Democratic National convention enacted a law prohibiting corporation contributions to campaign funds, but the Republican party in the House had, by unanimous vote of its members, passed an Act requiring complete publicity of all campaign contributions, this publicity to be made through statements filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives NOT LESS THAN TEN DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION FOR WHICH THESE FUNDS WERE CONTRIBUTED. Every vote cast for this bill was cast by a Republican, and every vote cast against it was cast by a Democrat. While the Democratic vote was ostensibly cast against the bill because of the fact that it required a report from the Census with reference to the number of votes cast in Southern States and a comparison thereof with the number of white and colored citizens of voting age, the fact remains that the Democratic party in Congress, irrespective of sectional lines, preferred to sacrifice complete publicity in campaign contributions and expenditures rather than couple with it publicity regarding the suppression, by their own party leaders, of the elective franchise as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Democratic Pledge of Publicity Relates to Only a Part of Its Fund. Another important contrast between the methods proposed by the Democratic candidates and committee and those proposed by the Republican candidates and committee is in the EXTENT to which publicity is to be carried in reference to the amount of contributions received. The Democratic committee, on the recommendation of Mr. Bryan and Mr. Kern, passed a resolution at its meeting at Fairview, Mr. Bryan's residence, to the effect that "it will accept no individual contribution above $10,000, and that it will make public before election all individual contributions above $100." This promise, therefore, is merely that the committee will make public before election a statement of all contributions ABOVE ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS in amount, but it makes no promise that any statement will be made of the total sum received, the sums which it proposes to publish being simply "ALL INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS ABOVE ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS." Thus all contributions reaching the committee in checks or sums less than $100 would not be subject to publication or announcement of any kind. Under this proviso of the Democratic publicity plan, those desiring to avoid publicity in contributions in excess of $100 could readily do so by dividing the proposed gift into as many separate contributions of $100 or less as might be required to make the total of the larger sum. As illustrating the misleading and regue nature of these Democratic promises, it is not improper to call attention to the fact that Mr. Bryan, in the same issue of the Commoner in which he announces with a flourish of trumpets this action as having been taken upon the recommendation of himself and Mr. Kern, makes an appeal to the farmers of the United States, an appeal signed by himself and Mr. Kern as the candidates of the Democratic party, for contributions of $100 or less, saying: "There are hundreds of thousands of farmers who are abundantly able to contribute to the campaign fund; there are thousands who could give $100 apiece without feeling it; there are tens of thousands who could give $50 apiece without feeling it, and still more who could give $25 or $10 or $5." He asks the farmers to make contributions through his own paper, the Commoner, to a farmers' fund to be turned over to the Democratic National Committee. The last Census of the United States shows that the total number of farms in the United States (and therefore the total number of farmers) was, in 1900 5,739,657; and presumably there must be at the present time over 6 million farmers. Supposing one-third of these to be Democrats, this would give two million individuals appealed to by Mr. Bryan and Mr. Kern to give sums of $100 downward. Should one-half of this number respond to the appeal the number of contributions from the farmers alone would thus be 1 million. Supposing that their contributions were the lowest named by Mr. Bryan and Mr. Kern-$5 each-this would give from the farmers alone a campaign fund of $5,000,000, NOT ONE PENNY OF WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE IN ANY WAY REPORTED BY THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE in its vaunted publicity of campaign contributions, and this, of course, would also leave all contributions from all other classes when below $100 in amount, likewise a matter of absolute secrecy with the Democratic National Committee. Contrast this incompleteness of campaign publicity with the plan proposed by the bill which (printed in full on another page of this volume) passed the Republican House of Representatives May 12, 1898, being supported by every Republican present and voted against by every Democrat whose vote was recorded. That bill provided that the treasurers of political committees should, not less than 10 days before the election, file with the Clerk of the House of Representatives a statement showing the name and address of each person, firm, association, or committee which had contributed $100 or more; also, THE TOTAL SUM OF ALL CONTRIBUTIONS IN AMOUNTS LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS, and, third, THE TOTAL SUM OF ALL CONTRIBUTIONS. The promise of the Democratic National Committee is merely to make public a statement of the amount received in contributions of MORE THAN $100 EACH. The plan proposed by the Republicans and unanimously supported by them, was to make public before election the total sum of ALL CONTRIBUTIONS, whether contributed in sums below or above the $100 line. Publicity as to Expenditures Proposed by Republicans but not Mentioned by Democrats. Still another and even more striking contrast in the publicity plans proposed by the Democrats and those by the Republicans is found in the fact that the Democrats promise publicity merely with reference to contributions, and then only as to those exceeding $100 each, but promise no publicity with reference to the objects for which any contributions are EXPENDED; while the Republican plan proposes publicity as to ALL MONEYS received and all moneys EXPENDED. The resolution of the Democratic committee is absolutely silent as to any publicity regarding expenditures. The Act passed by Republican votes in the House of Representatives provides that the treasurers of political committees shall report to the Clerk of the House prior to the election "an itemized statement," showing "the name and address of each person, firm, association or committee to whom such political committee, or any officer, member, or agent thereof has disbursed, contributed, loaned, advanced, or promised any sum of money or its equivalent of the amount of value of $10 or more and the purposes thereof, and the TOTAL SUM SO DISBURSED*** where the amount or value of such disbursement is less than $10." The lew of New York State, under which the Treasurer of the Republican National Committee promises to conduct his work * * 併 of receipts and expenditures also requires complete statements of "all receipts, expenditures, disbursements and liabilities of the committee and of every officer, member or other person in its behalf." To sum up: The publicity demand of the Democrats for exclusion of corporation contributions to campaign funds comes 18 months after a Republican Congress had enacted and a Republican President signed a law prohibiting such contributions; Mr. Bryan's belated proposal for an appeal to Congress in behalf of publicity came weeks after Mr. Taft had made such an appeal to Congress, and the kind of publicity promised by the Democratic National Committee includes only a small proportion of the sums which it will receive, AND NO PUBLICITY AS TO EXPENDITURES; while the Republican promise of publicity includes the total of all sums contributed and COMPLETE PUBLICITY AS TO EXPENDITURES. The Publicity Pledges of the Democratic Platform and Committee. The publicity promise of the Democratic platform of 1908 reads as follows: "We pledge the Democratic party to the enactment of a law prohibiting any corporation from contributing to a campaign fund and any individual from contributing an amount above a reasonable maximum, and providing for the publication before elections of all such contributions." The publicity promise of the Democratic National Committee of 1908, adopted at the suggestion of Mr. Bryan (as stated in the "Commoner" of July 24, page 4) is as follows: Resolved: That the Democratic National Committee, in pursuance to the pledge given in the National platform recently adopted at Denver, announces that it will accept no contributions whatever from corporations: that it will accept no individual contributions above $10,000, and that it will make publication before election of all individual contributions above $100. Contributions received before October 15th being published on or before that date and contributions received after that date being published on the date upon which they are received, and that no contributions above $100 shall be accepted within three days of the election." Some Occasions When Mr. Bryan did not Desire Publicity. Mr. Bryan's anxiety for publicity with reference to campaign funds seems to be a matter of comparatively recent development, since charges have been publicly made by the New York World and other leading newspapers that Mr. T. F. Ryan, in the campaign of 1904, contributed a large sum to the Democratic campaign fund, of which $20,000 was sent to the Democratic State Committee of Nebraska, which was attempting to elect a Democratic legislature for the purpose of sending Mr. Bryan to the Senate; and although Mr. Bryan made the assertion that if it proved true he would personally refund that entire sum, no record has been made of any refund by him or of a disproval of the World's charges; while Mayor Dahlman, of Omaha, in an interview widely disseminated frankly admits the receipt of a contribution from the committee, which he says was disbursed by him in the vain effort to swing Nebraska in the Democratic column, and adds "the money did good, and while Roosevelt carried the State by something like 83,000 majority, Berge lost it by less than 10,000 votes. If we had had $15,000 more we would have carried the State for Berge, our candidate for Governor." Commenting upon Mr. Bryan's recent attitude with reference to contributions to his campaigns, the New York World (Democratic) of June 1, 1908, has the following: Mr. Bryan says that if Thomas F. Ryan contributed either directly or indirectly to the Nebraska campaign fund in 1904 he will personally repay every cent of the contribution. Why this sudden sensitiveness in regard to Mr. Ryan? Mr. Bryan allowed the silver-mine owners to contribute $288,000 to his campaign fund in 1896, and there could be no more sordid purpose than that which prompted those contributions. Mr. Bryan allowed William A. Clark, of Montana, to contribute to his campaign fund, and there has been no more notorious corruptionist in American politics. Mr. Bryan gladly accepted political assistance from Richard Croker, and there is no great mystery as to where Mr. Croker got it. A candidate who could be grateful to Clark and Croker need not be overly squeamish about Ryan. Besides, Mr. Ryan's Nebraska money was spent in a most sanctified cause. The Hon. Jim Dahlman proudly asserts that he disbursed it; that not a cent of it was used to help Parker, and that it was all devoted to the State campaign. Had a fusion Legislaure been elected, Mr. Bryan would have been sent to the United States Senate, and Mr. Ryan's tainted contributions would have been doubly sanctified. The New York World in its special publication issued in February, 1908, entitled "The Map of Bryanism; Twelve Years of Demagogy and Defeat" says, (pages 12, 13 and 14): If the obvious self-interest of the silver miners in the 16 to 1 crusade carried on by Democrats and Populists in 1896 had been as well understood as it should have been the names of these men would be as closely associated in the public mind with the Silver Trust as Rockefeller's is with oil or Armour's is with beef. The people have been made well acquainted in recent years with the names of the men interested in beef, in oil, in tobacco, in coal, in copper, in iron and steel and in other commodities the production and sale of which is believed to be governed by trusts. How many of them know or have heard the names of the producers of silver, in whose behalf you, Mr. Bryan, worked as zealously as any trust lawyer ever did for his client? When the Republicans, after many years of evasion, finally refused to take up the cause of the miners, the latter naturally sought the assistance of the Populists and the Democrats, and their reception was more cordial than they had dared to hope for. As you yourself will doubtless agree, the most powerful advocate thus gained was William Jennings Bryan, of Nebraska. Here is a list of some of the gentlemen who assisted in financing your theory that 50 cents' worth of silver bullion ought to be worth a dollar: Contributions to Mr. Bryan's Campaign Fund. David H. Moffat, First National Bank, Denver, Col. Dennis Sheedy, Colodado National Bank, Denver, Col. D. M. Hyman, Denver, Col. Other Colorado mining interests Utah mining interests The Treasurer of the fund was J. R. Walker, of Walker Bros., Bankers, Salt Lake City. tributors were as follows: W. W. Chisholme, Mine owner J. E. Bamberger, President Daly-West Mining Company John Beok, Mine owner T. R. Jones, Ore buyer O. J. Salsbury, Mine owner $159,000.00 18,000.00 12,000.00 45,000.00 7,500.00 15,000.00 7,500.00 6,000.00 18,372,70 The chief individual en 250.00 250.00 500.00 250.00 500.00 Frank Knox, President National Bank of Rep 100.00 Total contributions of the silver mine owners to your 34.00 69.00 300.00 537.00 116.00 307.00 200.00 $288,000.00 These contributions, as you doubtless know, Mr. Bryan, were all recorded in the books of the Democratic National Committee, although in your eloquent appeals for publicity of political contributions you have never referred to the fact that the silver interests financed your Presidential campaign. It is better for this country to feed, clothe, and house our own labor in this country than to support foreign labor in other countries with our money.-H. K. Thurber. |