28.02.2015 Views

CORRUPTION Syndromes of Corruption

CORRUPTION Syndromes of Corruption

CORRUPTION Syndromes of Corruption

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!