CORRUPTION Syndromes of Corruption
CORRUPTION Syndromes of Corruption
CORRUPTION Syndromes of Corruption
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
64 <strong>Syndromes</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Corruption</strong><br />
George Washington featured widespread distribution <strong>of</strong> food and spirits<br />
(Thayer, 1973; Troy,1997), which some saw as vote-buying. The Bank<br />
<strong>of</strong> the United States helped underwrite Henry Clay’s 1832 presidential<br />
campaign, giving Andrew Jackson an issue he used effectively in winning<br />
re-election (United States, Federal Election Commission, 1995: 1).The<br />
first federal law on political finance, enacted in 1867, protected Navy Yard<br />
workers from demands for contributions (United States, Federal Election<br />
Commission, 1995: 5). Political machines in the late nineteenth and early<br />
twentieth centuries shook down local businesses for funds, and then<br />
engaged in vote-buying and paid ‘‘floaters’’ to vote many times. In the<br />
1896 presidential election financier Mark Hanna and his friends raised an<br />
unprecedented $3.5 million (about $77.5 million in 2005 dollars) on behalf<br />
<strong>of</strong> William McKinley (United States, Federal Election Commission,<br />
1995: 1; Inflation Calculator, 2005). That led to the first serious proposal<br />
for public funding <strong>of</strong> federal elections, advanced by Theodore Roosevelt<br />
in 1905. The 1907 Tillman Act barred contributions by corporations<br />
and national banks; in 1910 House campaigns were required by law to<br />
disclose financial information, a requirement extended to the Senate in<br />
1911 (United States, Federal Election Commission, 1995: 1).<br />
After the Harding scandals Congress enacted the Federal Corrupt<br />
Practices Act <strong>of</strong> 1925, imposing strict spending limits upon House and<br />
Senate campaigns. But they were so low that there was little chance they<br />
would ever be obeyed. Moreover, they applied only to campaign committees<br />
operating in two or more states, with no limit upon the number <strong>of</strong><br />
committees a candidate could have. Provisions for disclosure were weak,<br />
and candidates could exempt themselves altogether by claiming they had<br />
no knowledge <strong>of</strong> expenditures on their behalf. The law did not apply to<br />
primary elections at all – a major drawback where the dominant party’s<br />
nomination was tantamount to election (Johnston, 1982: ch. 6). Despite<br />
its weaknesses, or perhaps because <strong>of</strong> them – no candidate was ever<br />
prosecuted under its provisions, and no less a political operator than<br />
Lyndon Johnson termed it ‘‘more loophole than law’’ (Lukas, 1976:<br />
186) – the 1925 Act stayed on the books for nearly half a century.<br />
The rules <strong>of</strong> play<br />
The current federal system <strong>of</strong> campaign finance in the United States<br />
began to emerge in 1966, when Congress enacted legislation providing<br />
for public funding <strong>of</strong> presidential general election campaigns through<br />
payments to parties. This law was repealed a year later, but its provision<br />
for a check-<strong>of</strong>f box on federal tax forms inviting individuals to earmark a<br />
portion <strong>of</strong> their tax to fund campaigns was reinstated by the Revenue Act