Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T01:58:14.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Campaigns and Potato Chips; or Some Causes and Consequences of Political Spending

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2009

Paula Baker
Paula Baker
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Before getting too upset about the initially eye-popping sums candidates spend to win elections, law professor (and current member of the Federal Election Commission) Bradley A. Smith advises us to put campaign costs in perspective. Americans, he notes, spent two or three times more on potato chips than on electing candidates in the mid-1990s. For Smith, the potato chip example is only one illustration that ought to settle fears about “obscene” and “runaway” campaign expenses. Perspective, however, is unlikely to move those convinced that big donors drive the political agenda. Convinced that money and politics is a far more nefarious combination than fat and salt, campaign finance reformers will no doubt carry on their search for new ways to limit spending and contributions, continuing the Progressive Era crusade to eliminate money's degrading influence on democracy.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 14 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Money and Politics , January 2002 , pp. 4 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 2002

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

Notes

1. Smith, Bradley A., Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform (Princeton, 1991), 42. A handy compilation and discussion of national campaign laws is Corrado, Mann, Ortiz, Potter, and Soraf, eds., Campaign Finance Reform: A Sourcebook (Washington, D.C., 1997).Google Scholar

2. I take some inspiration from the “new institutionalist” work on political economy. I have in mind, for example, Aldrich, John H., Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America (Chicago, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moe, Terry M., “The Politics of Bureaucratic Structure,” in John E. Chubb and Paul E. Peterson, Can the Government Govern? (Washington, D.C., 1989)Google Scholar; and Weingast, Barry R. and Marshall, William, “The Industrial Organization of Congress,” Journal of Political Economy 96 (02 1988): 132–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. The focus on Republicans here is accidental, for these campaigns records are especially good, which is not often the case with campaign finance. In 1868, the coordination of a national campaign no doubt helped with record-keeping. The Whitaker-Baxter collection at the California State Archive provides an early consultant's view of running modern campaigns, and Whitaker-Baxter handled Republican accounts as well as campaigns on ballot questions. Republicans would tend toward greater centralization than Democrats until perhaps the 1970s.

4. But on electioneering, see Dinkin, Robert J., Campaigning in America: A History of Electoral Practices (Westport, Conn., 1989)Google Scholar; and McGerr, Michael E., The Decline of Popular Politics: The American North, 1865–1928 (New York, 1986).Google Scholar

5. For an overview of the issues and candidates, see Franklin, John Hope, “Election of 1868,” in Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr., ed., History of American Presidential Elections, 1789–1968, vol. 3 (New York, 1985), 1247–1266.Google Scholar

6. The most concise account of patronage, payoffs, and parties as financial organizations is Yearley, Clifton K., The Money Machines: The Breakdown and Reform of Party Finance in the North, 1860–1920 (Albany, N.Y., 1970), especially 97–134.Google Scholar

7. A description of party structure is Macy, Jesse, Party Organization and Machinery (New York, 1912).Google Scholar

8. On building infrastructure, see Abbott, Richard H., “The Republican Party Press in Reconstruction Georgia, 1867–1874,” Journal of Southern History 61 (11 1995): 725–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Abbott, , The Republican Party and the the South, 1855–1877: The First Southern Strategy (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1986)Google Scholar; Foner, Eric, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877 (New York, 1988), 346–379Google Scholar; and Powell, Lawrence M., “The Politics of Livelihood: Carpetbaggers in the Deep South,” in Kousser, J. Morgan and McPherson, James M., eds., Region, Race, and Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of C. Vann Woodward (New York, 1982), 281–348.Google Scholar

9. The URCC raised some funds through the sale of documents as well as through assessments; Tullock to Chandler, 26 August 1868, Chandler Papers. On the operation of the URCC, see Supreme Court of the United States, In the Matter of Newton Martin Curtis, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Brief for the Government, pp. 5–6, New-York Historical Society. Congressional Republicans formed the URCC in 1866, when it proved useful in their conflict with President Andrew Johnson. But the Union Executive Congressional Committee performed many of the same functions at least by 1864. See the undated assessment memo, Union Executive Congressional Committee; and D. N. Cooley, Secretary, Union Executive Congressional Committee, 28 October 1864, to Edwin D. Morgan, Morgan Papers, New York State Archives.

10. Untitled, 9 July 1868, and undated, “Plan for Raising Funds,” Chandler Papers.

11. Untitled, 9 July 1868, Chandler Papers; and Abbott, Republican Party in the South, 201.

12. Chandler's career is traced in Leon Burr Richardson, William E. Chandler, Republican (New York, 1940).Google Scholar

13. Undated circular received 6 June 1868, Chandler Papers. The attempted swindle caused some confusion down the line, John Churchill to Chandler, 29 July 1868, Chandler Papers. On Maine, see, for example, James G. Blaine to Claflin, 31 August 1868; Blaine to Chandler, 10 September 1868; polling results from Maine towns, 25 August 1868; and Claflin to Chandler, 31 August 1868, Chandler Papers; Richardson, Chandler, 109.

14. On speakers, see A. H. Conner to Chandler, 6 August 1868. Conner to Chandler, 29 August 1868; and Union Republican State Central Committee, Indiana, to Claflin, 1 September 1868. Conrad Baker to Horace Greeley, 1 September 1868, claimed $25,000 from Louisville; a newspaper doubled the sum, Indianpolis Jounral, 16 and 23 September, 1868; and New York Times, 11 September 1868 and elsewhere. Schuyler Colfax claimed the police effort worked, Colfax to Chandler, 6 October 1868. Also see Richardson, Chandler, 111–13.

15. One of the few fairly hopeful early appraisals about the Indiana outlook was Godlove S. Orth to Chandler, 6 August 1868; Allen to Chandler, 11 September 1868, showed skepticism toward the demands for cash. On congressional candidates, see D. W. Voyles to Chandler, 12 September 1868 (quote); Orth to Chandler, 7 September 1868; Chandler to Orth, 8 September 1868; Orth to Chandler, 13 October 1868; and J. M. Ashley to Chandler, 13 September 1868.

16. Oliver P. Morton to Republican National Executive Committee, 7 September 1868; Chandler to Orth, 10 October 1868 (quote); J. Russell Jones to Chandler, 11 September 1868; C. M. Allen to Chandler, 12 September 1868; D. W. Voyles to Chandler, 20 October 1868; Conner to Chandler, 24 December 1868.

17. For relatively optimistic early reports and the trouble in Florida, see Scroggs, Jack B., “Southern Reconstruction: A Radical View,” Journal of Southern History 24 (11 1958): 410–415.Google Scholar

18. On rallies and speakers, see John H. Caldwell to Claflin, 4 July 1868 (quote); Tullock to Chandler, 30 June 1868. Also see J. H. Jenks to Chandler, 17 June 1868; J. M. Edmunds to Chandler, 13 June 1868 and F. W. Kellog to Chandler, 1 August 1868. On newspapers, see A. C. Fisk to Chandler, 29 August 1868; and Abbott, “Republican Party Press.”

19. Claflin to Chandler, 22 July 1868 (quote); Tullock to Chandler, 17 September 1868 (quote). On Georgia, Bryan, J. E. to “My Dear Sir,” 5 10 1868Google Scholar; John H. Caldwell to Claflin, 7 October 1868; Chandler Papers; Scroggs, “Southern Reconstruction”; Shadgett, Olive Hall, The Republican Party in Georgia: From Reconstruction Through 1900 (Athens, Ga., 1964), 1–20Google Scholar. On the pace of funding, see Tullock to Chandler, 6 October 1868; Tullock to Chandler, 9 October 1868; Charles A. Miller to Tullock, 13 October 1868; M. A. Southworth to Chandler, 21 October 1868; and Tullock to Chandler, 13 October 1868, Chandler Papers; and Abbott, Republican Party in the South, 196–200.

20. John M. Morris to Claflin, 14 September 1868; Foner, Reconstruction, 291–345; and Franklin, “Election of 1868.”

21. John M. Morris to Claflin, 24 September 1868; Scroggs, “Southern Reconstruction.”

22. Foster Blodgett to Chandler, 13 September 1868; Joseph E. Brown to Chandler, 8 October 1868, Chandler Papers; Franklin, “Election of 1868”; Dauphine, James G., “The Knights of the White Camelia and the Election of 1868: Louisana's White Terrorists, A Benighting Legacy,” Louisiana History 30 (1989): 173–190Google Scholar; and Trelease, Allen W., White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction (New York, 1971).Google Scholar

23. Tullock to Chandler, 27 October 1868, listed the amount the URCC spent on Southern campaigns, which included some contributions from the RNC. Louisiana received another contribution, Southworth to Chandler, 5 November 1868, perhaps of $1,000. It seems likely that both Chandler's office and the regional offices also provided funds. See also Abbott, , Republican Party and the South, 175–203.Google Scholar

24. Abbott, Republican Party and the South; Virginia, De Santis, Vincent P., “President Arthur and the Independent Movements in the South in 1882,” Journal of Southern History 19 (08 1953): 346–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Dailey, Jane, Before Jim Crow: The Politics of Race in Postemancipation Virginia (Chapel Hill, N.C., 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. A summary of the situation in Virginia that captures much of the correspondence is Fred McWane to Paul W. Corliss, 4 April 1949; on conservatives looking for a home, see among many R. A. Harris to Sinclair Weeks, 20 July 1950, Fred McWane Papers, University of Virginia.

26. P. M. Wagenhols to Chandler, 11 September 1868. Another Ohio congressman who would lose his race pleaded for the $1,000 he believed he had been promised and complained about a $50 state assessment, J. M. Ashley to Chandler, 13 September 1868. On the Soldiers and Sailors, see, for example, Joshua T. Owen and Charles H. T. Russel to Claflin, 12 September 1868, a request for $5,000; N. P. Chipman, 19 September 1868, to Chandler; John A. Logan to Republican National Executive Committee, 19 September 1868. On later requests from other parts of the country, see E. W. Fox (Missouri) to Chandler, 24 September 1868 (who received $2,500, Claflin to Chandler, 20 October 1868); W. C. Doane, 4 October 1868, to Chandler (Pennsylvania); George Wilkes, 7 October 1868, to Committee on Finance of the National Committee (New York); J. H. Kemble to Chandler (Pennsylvania), 20 October 1868. On transportation fund, see Tullock to Chandler, 20 October 1868; New Jersey received $4,000 (Claflin to Chandler, 24 October 1868, Chandler Papers

27. David Wood to Chandler, 24 July 1868; and Charles H. Ham to Chandler, 13 November 1868. A similar complaint from Iowa is John Runnells (Republican Union State Central Committee), 25 July 1868 to Chandler. Jones had collected $15,046, with $14,000 going to Indiana; Jones to Chandler, 15 November 1868, Chandler Papers.

28. J. R. Jones to Chandler, 26 June 1868; and 27 June 1868, Chandler Papers. Claflin to “My Dear Sir,” 27 July 1868, Chandler Papers. On the pace of assessments, see Tullock to Chandler, 4 September 1868; 9 September 1868; 16 September 1868; 17 September 1868; 20 October 1868; and 26 October 1868, Chandler Papers.

29. James Kelly to Chandler, 18 September 1868; Iver Phillips to Chandler, 15 August 1868; and 25 August 1868, Chandler Papers. 81. Daniel B. Sickles to Chandler, 31 August 1868. On other contributions, see, for example, Tom Scott to Chandler, 6 July 1868; John D. Perry to Chandler, 14 August 1868; Tullock to Claflin, 4 September 1868; Jay Cooke to Chandler, 7 1868; E. Delafield Smith to Moses Grinnell, 19 September 1868; Grinnell to “My Dear Sir,” 22 September 1868; and Grinnell to Chandler, 27 September 1868. Manufacturing money might well have been more important in the states, such as Pennsylvania.

31. Chandler to “My Dear General,” 15 October 1868, Ulysses S. Grant Papers, Series 10, Library of Congress. Chandler moved in the opposite direction, becoming a lobbyist for various industrial and railroad concerns in the off season; Richardson, Chandler. On Grinnell, see Hoogenboom, Ari, Outlawing the Spoils: A History of the Civil Service Reform Movement, 1865–1883 (Urbana, Ill., 1968), 75, 90.Google Scholar

32. Chandler to Washburne, 19 July 1872, Elihu Washburne Papers, Library of Congress; Chandler Papers, vols. 21–34; and “Receipts and Expenditures of William E. Chandler,” Ocober 1872, Edwin D. Morgan Papers.

33. Hoogenboom, Outlawing the Spoils.

34. On the persistence of government workers as a source of intelligence and, at times, funds, see, for example, Fowler, Dorthy Ganfield, The Cabinet Politician: The Postmasters General, 1829–1909, rpt. ed. (New York, 1943, 1967), 246–303Google Scholar; through the correspondence covering 1908 through 1912 in The Papers of the Republican Campaign, Library of Congress; and Commission of Inquiry on Public Service Personnel, Minutes of Evidence taken before the Commission of Inquiry on Public Service Personnel at Hearings held in Washington, New York, Chicago, Minneapolis, St. Paul; Seattle, San Francisco, Berkeley, Palo Alto, Los Angeles, Richmond, 1934 (New York, 1935), 65–203.

35. McCormick, Richard L., “The Discovery That Business Corrupts Politics”; Edward Chase Kirkland, Dream and Thought in the Business Community, 1860–1900 (Chicago, 1956), 115–143.Google Scholar

36. Overarcker, Louise, Money in Elections (New York, 1932)Google Scholar; Emil Hurja Papers, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library.

37. Elizabeth Clemens, The People's Lobby; Samish, Arthur H. and Thomas, Bob, The Secret Boss of California: The Life and High Times of Art Samish (New York, 1971).Google Scholar

38. Kelley, Stanley Jr., Professional Public Relations and Political Power (Baltimore, 1956), 39–66; Carey McWilliams, “Government by Whitaker and Baxter,” The Nation (14 and 21 April and May 1951); and Clem Whitaker Jr. to Albert R. Russell, 10 March 1953.Google Scholar

39. Baxter quoted in Kelley Jr., Professional Public Relations, 44.

40. Whitaker and Baxter to Howard Ahmanson, 23 February 1954. A 1952 state law made winning both primaries more difficult, since primary ballots of all parties would identify candidates with party labels. Richard B. Harvey, The Dynamics of California Government and Politics (Belmont, Calif., 1970), 14–15; Pitchell, Robert J., “The Electoral System and Voting Behavior: The Case of California's Cross-Filing,” Western Political Quarterly 12 (07 1959): 459–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McHenry, Dean E., “Invitation to the Masquerade,” reprinted in David Farrelly and Ivan Hinderaker, The Politics of California: A Book of Readings (New York, 1951), 75–81.Google Scholar

41. Kelley, Jr., Professional Public Relations, 47Google Scholar; Whitaker and Baxter to Dr. Lewis Alesen, 23 Febrary 1954; Whitaker and Baxter to Doctor John Cline, 23 February 1954; Whitaker and Baxter to Ahmanson, 23 February 1954; Ahmanson to Goodwin Knight, 17 March 1954 (among others in this group); transcript of telephone conversation, with Mr. Robert Ledger, 3 March 1954, labeled State Rubbish Collectors Association; Nathan L. Fairbairn to Thomas Gregory, undated, deposited 15 September 1954; and untitled, 7 March 1954, list of Southern California groups, Whitaker-Baxter Papers, Box 24.

42. Zel Conn to Ahmanson, 5 May 1954; and Baxter to Russell W. Lockwood, 28 April 1954, Whitaker-Baxter Papers, Box 24.

43. Jim Dorais to Leone, undated, WB, Box 22; Plan of Campaign, undated, Box 23; Leone and Clem to Russell W. Lockwood, 20 April 1954; Whitaker and Baxter to “Fellow Campaigner,” 20 August 1954, Whitaker and Baxter Papers.

44. Whitaker and Baxter to Russell Lockwood, 16 January 1954, Whitaker-Baxter Papers.

45. “McWilliams, “Government by Whitaker and Baxter.”

46. Sabato, Larry J., The Rise of Political Consultants: New Ways of Winning Elections (New York, 1981).Google Scholar

47. Dionne, E. J., Why Americans Hate Politics (New York, 1991).Google Scholar