CATT, Carrie Chapman SPEECH, ARTICLE, BOOK FILE Article: "One Growing Menace" One Growing Menace [*?date*] Out of the Washington controversies certain very definite evils have been uncovered with startling clarity. Each one presents an important problem calling for effective solution, yet none of the problems are new. They belong to that class of long standing evils which are tolerated because no remedy has been found and applied. Each one is curable and always has been. Just now, however, each has become more audaciously menacing to the well-being of this country than ever before and therefore demands immediate attention. An efficient nation will not pause until an end has been made of them. Whichever party is entrusted with our National affairs after the next election should be held strictly accountable for the manner in which it applies itself to these questions and their fearless treatment. Five such problems stand forth more urgently needing solution than others. The first is the problem of campaign contributions. Campaigns cannot be run without money as everyone knows, and in that fact lies the obstacle. Each party in town, country, state and nation gathers all it can and in its desperation to get funds, ever more funds, it does not question the motives of those who give. Doheny and Sinclair each testified that they had contributed to both parties. This is an old and familiar method of the brewers, who for years followed the plan, and thus made sure of favors whichever way the election cat might jump. Mr. Sinclair, being a Republican, seems to have been more generous to his own party and Will Hays, National Republican Chairman in 1920, admitted that he had contributed $75,000 to wipe out the after campaign deficit although he had contributed generously to the regular fund. Doheny, being a Democrat, treated his own party with the same partiality. He testified that he gave the Democrats $75,000. George White, National Democratic Chairman, could only recall that Mr. Doheny had given $34,900, but the testimony is not yet all in. Now, whether these two -2- oil Kings made these huge contributions as an investment with the expectation of getting the money back with increase, the facts are that they did get it back in profits on oil leases from the government. Certainly it is not in human nature for any party in power to refuse requests of large contributors with the same frank decision which might be given ordinary petitioners. One of the earliest of the Senatorial investigations was made into the costs of the 1920 campaign. The report made by the Chairman, Senator Kenyon (Republican) has recently been quoted by Senator McKellor (Democrat). In the pre-conventions campaign of 1920, there was spent by Republicans for Calvin Coolidge $68,375 Warren G. Harding 113,109 Herbert Hoover 173,543 Hiram Johnson 195,395 Frank O. Lowden 314,984 Leonard Wood 1,173,303 $2,038,709 Total There was spent for the Democrats for Mitchell Palmer $59,610 Governor Cox 22,000 and "by other Democrats insignificant sums". The Republican National and Congressional Committees expended in the regular election $6,022,678. The forty-eight Republican State Committees spent an aggregate of $2,078,060. A Republican deficit of $1,600,000 was left at the end of the campaign which was afterward paid, making the total spent in the regular election $9,700,738. When the amount spent for candidates before the convention is added, the grand total becomes $11,739,447, a sum so large that Croesus would blushingly crawl into a hole in very humiliation that the world had called him rich. The Democratic National Congressional Committees spent $1,349,447. The forty-eight Democratic State Committees spent an aggregate of $888,323. And there was a $300,000 deficit afterwards paid, making a total spent by the Democrats of $2,537,750. The Democrats spent more money in 1916 - supposedly about $4,000,000. It is currently believed that the party with the most money wins. It follows that money is received without question and that temptations to -3- make promises of favors to the big givers is constant. To those who want honor or power, there are high offices to be assigned; to those who want money, there are high tariffs, protection for exploitation of foreign resources, helps in getting concessions, A thousand smaller things, from a pardon for a wayward member of a family up to a fat postoffice that may be rewards for big gifts. Such favors are bought, whether the dulled consciences of buyer and buyee recognize it or not. Money in hand, the campaign is conducted prodigally and wastefully, votes are bought (as all who are familiar with our system know) and any ideals a party may have had at the beginning are buried under the avalanche of ballots cast by the ignorant, illiterate and sub-normal, sordidly mobilized by the contests of dollars. The educated partisan, ignorant of the system, rejoices over the triumph of his party's tenets; but the really great men who are pitchforked into high office by these processes of which they cannot be ignorant, do not take their places as light-hearted champions of triumphant principles; they come as men who have seen ghosts and are haunted by the memory. The entire political machinery becomes sordid and sunk in low ethics. The expenditures of 1916 and 1920 exceeded those of any previous campaign. It is said that General Grant's victorious campaign of 1868 cost $10,000, that General Harrison was nominated against a field of rivals by a campaign costing $9,000. Parties do not often reveal their financial secrets, but these figures indicate how far they have traveled in extravagance. What is the remedy? Limit by law every contribution. (Senator McKellar proposes $500 as the largest that should be allowed.) The complete itemized list of contributors and the itemized disbursements of both parties should be open to the public. A Committee of Democrats to examine the Republican books officially and a Committee of Republicans to examine the Democratic books would be a delicate and effective method of safeguarding the public welfare. Such plans strictly enforced would take money as a determining factor out of politics and give us issues over which to make the contest in the election. One growing Menace Out of the Washington controversies certain very difficult evils have been uncovered with startling clarity. Each one presents an important problem calling for effective solution yet none of the problems are new. They belong to that class of longstanding evils which are tolerated because no remedy has been found and applied. Each one is curable and always has been [but] Just now however each has become more audaciously menacing [than] to the well being of this country than ever before and therefore demands immediate attention. [and] An efficient nation must not pause until an end has been made of them. Whichever party is entrusted with our national affairs after the next election should be held strictly accountable for 2 the manner in which it applies itself to these questions and their [proper] fearless malintent Five such problems stand forth more urgently needing solution than others. The first is the problem of campaign contributions. Campaigns can not be run without money as everyone knows, and in that fact lies the [difficulty] obstacle. Each party in town country state and nation [gets] gathers all it can and in its [anxiety] desperation to get funds, ever seen funds, it does not question the motives of those who give. Doherry and Sinclair each testified that they had contributed to both parties. This is an old and familiar method of the Bregers who for years forloned this plan and thus made sever of favors whichever may the election cat nugal just. Mr. Sinclair being a Republican teeues when never more generously to his own party and Mel Harp. national Republican chairman in 1920 admitted that he had contributed $75000 to Mrs out the after campaign deficit although he had contributed generously to the regular fund. Doherry being a Democrat [?] his own party with the [?] partiality [?] [?] that he gave the Democrats $75000. George White national Democratic Chairman could only recall $34,900 that Mr. Doherry had given but the testimony is not yet all in. Now whether these two [?] [?] made these huge contributions as an [?] [?] the expectation of getting the [?] increase back, the fact are they did get it back in profits or [?] from the government. Certainly it is not human nature for any party in power to refuse requests of large contributions [?] the [?] [?] decision which might be given ordinary petitioners National Woman Suffrage Publishing Company, Inc. 171 MADISON AVENUE, NEW YORK CITY TELEPHONE: MURRAY HILL 4818 MISS ESTHER G. OGDEN, President MRS CYRUS W. FIELD, Vice-President MISS HELEN POTTER, Treasurer & Secretary Directors MRS. RAYMOND BROWN MRS. STANLEY McCORMICK MRS. ARTHUR L. LIVERMORE Chairman of Literature 4 [It is not] One of the earliest of the sensational [?] galions was was made into the costs of the 1920 campaign. The report made by the Chairman Sen. Kenyon (Republican) has recently been quoted by Sen McKeller (Democrat.) In the pre conventions campaign of 1920 there was spend by Republicans for Calvin Coolidge 68.375 Warren G. Harding 113.109 Herbert Hoover 173.543 Hiram Johnson 195.395 Frank C. London 314.984 Leonard Wood 1,173.303 totaling 2,038,709 There was spent by Democrats for Michael Palmer 59.610 Governor Cox 22000 and by [whom?] 5 When Democrats insignificant [?]" The Republican National and Congressional Committes expended in the regular election $6,022,678 The forty eight Republican State Committees spend an aggregate of $2,078,060. A Republican deficit of 1,600000 was left at the end of the campaign in what was afterward paid, making the total spent in the regular election $9,700,738. When the amount spent for candidates before the conventions is added the grand total becomes $11,739,447 a sum so large that Croesus would blushingly crawl into a hole in very humiliation that he would had called him rich. The Democratic [paid in] [tribunal?] and Congressional Committees spent $1,349.4476. The forty eight [Republican] Democratic State Committees spent an aggregate [of 2,078,060] of $888,323. and there was a 300,000 deficit afterwards paid making a total speech by the Durents [?] of $2,537.750. [A corrupt practices act requires publicity of contributions but even is not (require)explicit enough or is evaded. The Durants [?] spent more money in 1916. They had us hope in 1920 and she (crossed out) They are supposed to now spent about four million there. It is currently believed that the party with the most money is the one that wins. It follows that any ones money and in any quantity possible will be accepted.] *The expenditures of 1916 and 1920 of exceeded these of every previous campaign. It is said that Gen Graul's victorious campaign of 1868 cost $10000, that Gen Harrison was nominated against a field of rivals by a campaign costing $9000. Parties do not often rival their financial secrets, but these figures indicate that for they then marveled in extravagance under the avalanche of ballots the ignorant, illiterate, and sub-normal sordidly mobilized by the contest of dallons [?]. The educated parties rejoices over the triumph of his party elects; but the really great men who are pitchforked who high office by the process of which they can not be ignorant do not take his places as lighthearted champions of triumphant principles; they come as men who [?] see ghosts and are haunted by the memory. The entire political machinery becomes sordid and sunk in loss ethics* What is the remedy? Learn by law every -6- The Democrats spend more money in 1916 - supposedly about four millions. It is currently currently behind that the party with the must money wins. It follows that money is received without question and that temptation to make promises of favors to the big givers is constant. To those who want honor or power there are high officers to be assigned, to those who want money there are high tariffs, protection for exploitation of foreign resources, helps in getting concessions A thousand smaller things from a pardon for a wayward member of a family up to fat post office that may be rewards for big gifts. Such favors are bought whether the dulled conscience of buyer and buyee recognize it or not. If money in hand the campaign is conducted mordigally and wastefully, votes are bought (as all who are familiar with our system know) and any ideals a party may have had at the beginning are buried. -8- contribution. (Sen McKillan proposes $500 as the largest that should be allowed) The complete itemized list of contributors and the itemized (expense) disbursements of both parties should be open to the public. A Committee of Republicans to examine the Democratic books would be a delicate and effective method of safe guarding the public welfare. Such plans strictly inforced would take money as a determining factor out of politics and (put us back upon the) give us issues over which to make the contest in the election must be done. (if the) Transcribed and reviewed by volunteers participating in the By The People project at crowd.loc.gov.