Search results

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.

The 1944 campaign was the second presidential election in which the ceilings of the Hatch Act were operative, and the first campaign in which contributions from labor organizations were prohibited. It furnishes convincing evidence of the ineffectiveness of these limitations and of the imperative need for complete revision of existing regulations of campaign funds.The financing of the 1944 campaign was subjected to close study by special committees of both the House and Senate, and their hearings and reports supplement at many important points the reports required by the Corrupt Practices Act. The most controversial issues of the campaign centered about the Political Action Committee of the CIO, and this organization was subjected to close study by both committees. The House committee, headed by Representative Clinton P. Anderson (now Secretary of Agriculture), also stressed the increasing importance and questionable practices of non-party "opinion moulders," but did not attempt to summarize the total expenditures of the campaign. Senator Green's committee, in addition to studying certain party committees and independent organizations in detail, made a great effort to compile complete data on receipts and expenditures affecting the presidential campaign, and its report makes available what is probably the most complete and accurate over-all picture of the financing of a presidential election ever recorded. The notable recommendations of this committee will be discussed later.

The presidential campaigns of 1928 and 1932 are a study in contrasts. In 1928, the United States was at the peak of the boom period; the incumbent Republicans were confident of victory; and the result was a Republican victory which "broke" the Solid South and swept all but two states outside that section into the Republican column. The 1932 campaign was fought in the midst of depression and disaster; confidence was with the Democrats for the first time in many years; and the result was a Democratic victory which put the party securely in control of both houses of Congress, as well as of the presidency. What effect did the changed economic and political outlook have upon the financing of the campaign?

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.

Black candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives receive substantially lower levels of campaign contributions than non-black candidates. This article investigates the reason for this discrepancy. Are blacks discriminated against or do they receive less money because they are riskier candidates? The results suggest that blacks do receive less money because of their race and that the source of the funds is important. Political action committees and political parties tend to discriminate but individual contributors do not.

Profile of contributors to the 1982 gubernatorial and state legislative elections in Arizona and Tennessee.