Money Votes

When Chairman Work of the Republican National Committee said that the Hoover campaign would be conducted on a budget of less than $3,000.000 (TIME, July 9), there was a general raising of eyebrows among political commentators, a general lowering of mouth-corners by local G. 0. P. bosses. Some $5,300,000 was recorded in the Harding-Coolidge campaign and more than $3,000,000 in the Coolidge-Dawes. This year, Chairman Work said, "We have candidates who will not need so large a sum." It sounded admirable, but a revised estimate was not unexpected.

Last week, the Democracy's chairman of finance, Banker Herbert H. Lehman of Manhattan, frankly announced that no limit would be placed upon the size or volume of contributions to the Smith campaign. The G. 0. P.'s Treasurer, Banker Joseph R. Nutt of Cleveland, immediately issued a revision of Chairman Work's $3,000,000 estimate. He mentioned $4,000,000 as a possible total and removed all idea of a limit to G. 0. P. contributions, individual or aggregate. He, too, referred to previous G. O. P. campaigns and said: "We have a harder fight on our hands this time."

It was another way of saying that the Republicans now realize that the Democrats have Big Money behind them this year.

In recent state primaries and elections, $1 per vote has been cheap indeed for the returns obtained. The unsuccessful campaign of George Wharton Pepper in Pennsylvania cost $3.69 per vote in 1926. The same year, in the same State, William B. Wilson spent 65c per vote for a Senate nomination for which he had no opposition.

About 30 million votes will be cast in the election this November. It is undoubtedly true that it is easier and cheaper to get out the vote in Presidential elections than in Senatorial. But if the current cost of Senate votes is no higher than $1 each, Presidential votes will have to be more than twice as easy and cheap if the major parties are to spend less than $15,000,000 between them.

And no matter how diligent and honest the national moneymen may be, only part of the total actually spent will be reported to Congress. Vast wads of local money, to be spent not literally in buying votes but in paying precinct "workers" to round up their families and friends, pass from , unnamed donors to taciturn precinct bosses. This money is meant, usually, to ensure the election of local candidates. The national candidates benefit simultaneously but the money does not show on their books.

Concerning G. 0. P. contributions, Treasurer Nutt also made this curious statement: "Another question concerns where it comes from. I feel sure that Chairman Hubert Work will not accept any improper vouchers. . . . No subscription has been requested or accepted where any reasonable question could be rightfully raised as to the donor or the amount of the subscription."

The Nutt plan for raising perhaps $4,000,000 was not elaborate. Mr. Nutt outlined it as follows:

"There will be two divisions for solicitation, namely (a) to solicit the small donors (b) to solicit the large donors."

Headquarters for (a) were to be in Chicago. Headquarters for (b) were Mr. Nutt himself, at the Union Trust Co., Cleveland. To assist him in the East, Mr. Nutt picked out a Manhattanite, Jeremiah Milbank, mild-mannered Yale graduate ('09), careful investor of a multi-million patrimony; clubman, generous donor to philanthropies (especially for cripples); director of such concerns as the Southern Railway, Metropolitan Life, Chase National Bank, Corn Products; board chairman of Case, Pomeroy & Co. Like Banker Nutt and the Democracy's Raskob, Mr. Milbank is new-to politics but widely acquainted, keen to learn.