Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-x5cpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T13:03:22.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Florida's New Campaign Expense Law and the 1952 Democratic Gubernatorial Primaries*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Elston E. Roady
Elston E. Roady
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Efforts by various states to regulate effectively the use of money in political campaigns have heretofore left ample loopholes for determined politicians. Florida has attempted to plug the loopholes with a revised election code which has become popularly known as “The Who Gave It—Who Got It Law.” Informed political observers in the Sunshine State are in agreement that in the 1952 Democratic gubernatorial primaries the new law gave an accurate accounting of monies.

Florida, like other states, has a number of economic interests which in the past have been associated with unreported contributions and expenditures in political campaigns, notably racing (both horse and dog), liquor, and corporations holding public utility franchises. By early 1951, Floridians, having had more than a fair share of adverse publicity concerning tie-ins between gangsters and politicians, were eager to guard against such tie-ins in the future. The Florida voter felt that the existing law did not effectively regulate campaign financing, and demanded effective regulation.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , June 1954 , pp. 465 - 476
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Chapter 26819 (Senate Bill No. 8), Acts of 1951, Laws of Florida.

2 Such associations were noted in the hearings before the Kefauver committee at Miami and Tampa.

3 General public knowledge of these “tie-ins” came from the Kefauver hearings at Miami and Tampa and the reaction was one of high indignation. The Florida electorate had also been informed after the 1948 election of large financial contributions made to the successful candidate for governor. In this instance one of the three most widely publicized contributors was a Chicago and Florida race track owner and a long-time associate of the Capone gang.

4 Quoted in Freedman, , “Two '48 Campaigns Put Spotlight On Excessive Expenditures; 1951 Legislature May Draft Some Curb,” St. Petersburg Times pamphlet (1951)Google Scholar.

5 The St. Petersburg Times had conducted a campaign of educating Florida citizens and especially the members of the Legislature on the need for a new approach to the control of money in elections. For the full story of the Times' methods see their publication “Who Gave It—Who Got It?.” Special mention must be made of Morty Freed man, one of their political reporters. Mr. Freedman has been most generous in supplying information to the writer.

6 Florida Times-Union, Dec. 21, 1951.

7 The revised code, termed the Dayton-Andrews bill (Senator Dayton was Chairman of the Elections Committee, while Representative Andrews was a long-time student of the Florida election code), passed the House by a vote of 49–30 and the Senate by a 30–6 margin, after having been defeated on a voice vote.

8 Compilation of the Election Laws of the State of Florida (Tallahassee: Secretary of State and Statutory Revision Department of Attorney General's office, 1951, pamphlet)Google Scholar, Section 99.161 (4) (a)(7).

9 Ibid., Section 99.161(2).

10 Ibid., Section 99.161(1)(a)(b)(c), (3), (4), (7).

11 Ibid., Section 99.161(8).

12 Ibid., Section 99.161(7).

13 Ibid., Section 99.161(1)(a)(b)(c).

14 Ibid., Section 99.161(10).

15 “The penalty provisions for its [the new election campaign expense law] violation, as set forth in Section 104.27, are so drastic in relation to a person's candidacy that, in the absence of court construction, extreme caution should be observed in arriving at the meaning and intent of its provisions.” Opinion of Florida Attorney General, Sept. 25, 1951.

16 Chapter 26819, Acts of 1951, Laws of Florida, Section 104.27.

17 J. Wesley Fly (candidate McCarty's campaign treasurer) to R. A. Gray, Oct. 29, 1951; J. Brailey Odham (candidate) to R. A. Gray, Oct. 19, 1951; and Alto Adams (candidate) to R. A. Gray, Nov. 14, 1951.

18 Opinion of Florida Attorney General, Nov. 30, 1951.

19 Finlay v. Ervin, 1 Fla. Supp. 198.

20 Smith v. Ervin, 1 Fla. Supp. 202.

21 St. Petersburg Times, Oct. 1, 1952.

22 Ibid.

23 Smith v. Ervin, 64 So. 2d 166.

24 The official reports require both name and address of each donor. The writer analyzed the lists of donors, using their professional, business, or occupational status as a prime base in determining economic group.

25 Compilation of the Election Laws of the State of Florida, Section 99.161(6).

26 The writer has attempted to adjust the losses the Adams people suffered in a fire during the campaign which almost completely destroyed their Tallahassee headquarters (state headquarters). One large item which went up in smoke consisted of uncounted numbers of both stamped cards and stamped envelopes. A considerable amount of campaign literature was also destroyed.

27 Interview, Oct. 20, 1953.

28 Interview, Oct. 22, 1953.

29 Compilation of the Election Law of the State of Florida (Tallahassee: Secretary of State and Statutory Revision Department of the Attorney General's office, August 1, 1953)Google Scholar, Section 99.021, .061(4), .161(9), .172, .183, and Section 104.051, .27(8), .271, .371, .38, .381, .46.

30 As quoted in Who Gave It—Who Got It?, St. Petersburg Times, pamphlet (1951).

31 Florida Times-Union, Dec. 21, 1951.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.