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.
The Treaty of Versailles provided that at the termination of a period of fifteen years from its coming into force, a plebiscite should be held in the Saar Territory to determine under what sovereignty its inhabitants desired to be placed. The following conditions were laid down for the plebiscite: "A vote will take place by communes or districts on the three following alternatives: (a) maintenance of the régime established by the present Treaty and by this Annex; (b) union with France; (c) union with Germany. All persons, without distinction of sex, more than 20 years old at the date of voting, resident in the Territory at the date of signature of the present Treaty, will have the right to vote. The other conditions, methods, and the date of voting shall be fixed by the Council of the League of Nations in such a way as to secure the freedom, secrecy,and trustworthiness of the voting."
The British Parliament has been passing through a period of pianissimo. Its praises should be sounded very softly, while its inadequacies and imperfections should be given wide attention. This does not imply a lack of veneration and respect for the Mother of Parliaments, but merely that a realistic approach should be made to the present-day value of this progenitor of the sturdy race of legislatures. No political institution is eternally successful, and even British institutions which have evolved so slowly, and in general so soundly, are no exceptions. The halo which surrounds Westminster is so great, however, that it almost blinds one to the imperfections which exist within those hallowed precincts. It seems almost sacrilegious, as a great British statesman recently observed, to attempt to meddle with "those great forms of procedure which have been handed down to us." And yet when the Mother of Parliaments has so obviously deteriorated as to lose much of the respect and prestige which was formerly its possession, one seems justified in calling attention to its inadequacies.The fact is that in the last thirty years Parliament has gradually become an inefficient legislative body which does not effectively control the government, and which the people can hardly be said to control. As early as 1908, President Lowell wrote that "the House of Commons is finding more and more difficulty in passing any effective vote, except a vote of censure." In 1931, it is doubtful whether even this can be done in a satisfactory way.
Each German federal election since 1949 has resulted in a reduction in the number of parties securing representation in the Bundestag. While this trend continued in 1961, there is evidence that the party system is becoming stabilized, making it unlikely that any of the present parties will disappear in the near future. This article examines the 1961 election and its significance for the German party system.The major outlines of the present German party system became apparent as early as 1946, when party activities were resumed on a zonal basis. The principal parties then in the field were the Communist Party, the Social Democratic Party, the Christian Democratic Union, and the Free Democratic Party. The last two of these were known differently in different sections of West Germany, but today, with very few exceptions, the designation for each group is the same throughout the Federal Republic.
