I start with an assumption. It is an assumption which can be supported by impressive evidence, and which political experts, familiar with that evidence, will be disposed to admit: campaign expenditures, in many parts of this country, tend to be not only excessive but also corrupt.

This corruption is particularly noxious because it affects the very foundations of the democratic process. Therefore, when once its existence has been recognized, the application of a remedy becomes imperative. Only one question can arise: What is the appropriate remedy?

Twenty years ago Mr. Perry Belmont was prescribing publicity. His pharmacopoeia resembled, in its simplicity, that of the late Sir William Osier, which was confined to nux vomica and hope. According to his belief—and it is shared by many today—the best method of treatment is to tell the patient what is wrong with him and let him cure himself. In a word, if the law requires publicity for the details of campaign contributions and expenditures, an informed public opinion, becoming aware of unhealthy conditions, can be relied upon to correct them.

Experience makes it plain that this prescription contains too much hope and not enough nux vomica. Public interest in campaign expenditures and the abuses connected with them is spasmodic. It can be roused from its chronic torpor only by the shock of some particularly scandalous or dramatic revelation. The shock comes at frequent intervals.