*<**~ stamped below 
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 
 
 UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA 
 
 AT 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 LIBRARY
 
 IOWA APPLIED HISTORY SERIES 
 
 EDITED BY BENJAMIN F. SHAMBAUGH 
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES 
 LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 BY 
 HENRY J. PETERSON 
 
 PUBLISHED AT IOWA CITY 10 WA IN 19 12 BY 
 THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF IOWA 

 
 
 EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION 
 
 The fact that social and political innovations are 
 frequently in advance of the prevailing code of public 
 morality is clearly illustrated in the history of pop- 
 ular elections. During the last century the suffrage 
 expanded so much and popular elections multiplied 
 so rapidly that the purity of the ballot has not been 
 adequately protected by the development of an 
 extra-legal code of public morality. And so, there 
 has grown up a body of legislation, known as "cor- 
 rupt practices acts", which aims to prevent various 
 illegal and corrupt practices connected with popular 
 elections — such as "illegal voting", "bribery", "un- 
 due influence", "intimidation", "personation", 
 A "treating", "betting on election results", and "im- 
 proper campaign contributions and expenditures". 
 It is doubtless true that corrupt practices legisla- 
 tion must remain more or less ineffective until 
 j supported by an elevated public sentiment which will 
 ^ set its face resolutely against all forms of political 
 \ corruption. At the same time the enactment of com- 
 prehensive corrupt practices acts will greatly aid in 
 ^ the development of a wholesome public opinion. 
 
 Benj. F. Shambaugh 
 
 Office of the Superintendent and Editor 
 
 The State Historical Society of Iowa 
 
 Iowa City 1912
 
 AUTHOR'S PREFACE 
 
 It is the purpose of this paper on Corrupt Practices 
 Legislation in Iowa to treat the subject comparatively as 
 well as historically. Accordingly, a chapter embodying 
 the results of a comparative study of corrupt practices 
 legislation in other jurisdictions is included. Some ap- 
 plications of the results of this historical and compara- 
 tive study are made in the final chapter. 
 
 While the materials of this paper are drawn largely 
 from legislative sources, current political literature has 
 been found useful. To Mr. Dwight Akers, Secretary of 
 the City Club of Chicago, I am indebted for assistance in 
 securing newspaper material. And to the Superintend- 
 ent of The State Historical Society of Iowa, Professor 
 Benj. F. Shambaugh, I especially wish to express my 
 gratitude for invaluable suggestions and criticisms gen- 
 erously given at every stage of the preparation of the 
 paper. 
 
 Henry J. Peterson 
 
 The Iowa State Teachers' College 
 Cedar Falls 1912
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 General Introduction ..... 
 I. History of Corrupt Practices Legislation in Iowa 
 
 THE MICHIGAN ACT OF 1827 
 TERRITORIAL LEGISLATION 1836-1846 
 THE ACT OF 1849 
 
 PROVISIONS OF THE CODE OF 1851 
 LEGISLATION FROM 1851 TO 1880 
 LEGISLATION FROM 1880 TO 1897 
 RECENT LEGISLATION 1897 TO 1912 
 
 II. An Analysis of Corrupt Practices Legislation 
 in Iowa 
 
 BRIBERY 
 
 UNDUE INFLUENCE 
 
 TREATING 
 
 ILLEGAL VOTING 
 
 BETTING ON ELECTION RESULTS 
 
 RESTRICTIONS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS 
 
 PUBLICITY OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS . 
 
 HI. A Comparative Study of Corrupt Practices Legis- 
 lation 
 
 BRIBERY 
 TREATING 
 
 UNDUE INFLUENCE 
 INTIMIDATION . 
 
 11 
 
 16 
 16 
 
 18 
 19 
 24 
 26 
 28 
 33 
 
 50 
 50 
 54 
 62 
 64 
 67 
 68 
 72 
 
 74 
 75 
 
 76 
 
 77 
 78 
 
 9
 
 10 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 PERSONATION ....... 79 
 
 BETTING ON ELECTION RESULTS .... 79 
 
 RESTRICTIONS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND 
 
 EXPENDITURES ...... 80 
 
 PUBLICITY OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EX- 
 PENDITURES ...... 87 
 
 STATE AID IN CAMPAIGNS . . . . . 91 
 
 RESTRICTIONS ON PUBLICATIONS .... 93 
 
 ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW : PROCEDURE . . 96 
 
 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF ELECTION LAWS . 100 
 
 IV. Suggestions for Reform in the Corrupt Practices 
 
 Legislation in Iowa ..... 103 
 
 re-definition of corrupt practices . . . 103 
 
 responsibility in handling campaign funds . 101 
 
 party assessments ..... 101 
 limitations on expenditures: conveyance of 
 
 VOTERS ....... 105 
 
 STATEMENTS OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES 105 
 CONTROL OF VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATIONS . . 106 
 STATE AID TO POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS : OFFICIAL IN- 
 FORMATION ...... 107 
 
 RESTRICTIONS ON PUBLICATIONS . . . 108 
 
 METHODS OF PROCEDURE ..... 109 
 
 PENALTIES ....... 109 
 
 SUMMARY ....... 110 
 
 Notes and References . . . . .113
 
 GENERAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 The value of the ballot has not always been appreciated 
 by the voter. Indeed, there are not a few citizens who 
 still fail to realize the fact that the privilege of choosing 
 men to public office was gained only after centuries of 
 struggle. Some have been willing to sell the privilege of 
 voting for a consideration. Others, feeling a dependence 
 upon their employers for a means of livelihood, have been 
 too easily influenced in casting their ballots. Moreover, 
 certain individuals and organizations, fully aware of the 
 advantage of having public offices filled by persons whom 
 they may control, have not been slow to take advantage 
 of these conditions. Thus, as everyone knows, there has 
 been much corruption and no little intimidation in con- 
 nection with elections. 
 
 To remedy these evils there has developed a species 
 of legislation known as "corrupt practices acts", which 
 may be taken to include all laws directed against conduct 
 which in practice or design tends to hinder or improperly 
 influence an elector in the exercise of his right of fran- 
 chise so that his judgment is perverted or he fails to cast 
 his vote in accordance with his real desire. 
 
 In early Iowa conditions were not favorable to the 
 growth of corrupt practices. Offices were neither nu- 
 merous, nor lucrative, nor specially attractive. There 
 were no well organized special interests to seek favors 
 from officeholders. Consequently there was little oc- 
 casion for the improper influencing of voters, and the 
 provisions of law relative to corrupt practices were brief 
 
 11
 
 12 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 and fragmentary. But with the development of the 
 country, the coming of railroads, the organization of 
 municipal utilities, the building of factories, and the 
 opening of mines conditions changed. Here as elsewhere 
 the well organized industrial interests desired special 
 favors in connection with the making and administration 
 of law. 
 
 Since the year 1890 corrupt practices legislation in the 
 United States has been aimed primarily at the control of 
 the use of money in elections, on the theory that preven- 
 tion of the commission of election offenses is more im- 
 portant and desirable than provisions for the punishment 
 of such acts after they have been committed. Legislation 
 along these lines includes (1) acts restricting campaign 
 contributions as to source, amount, or the agency for 
 raising funds, with corresponding restrictions on cam- 
 paign expenditures, (2) laws requiring the publicity of 
 campaign funds, and (3) statutes providing for State aid 
 in conducting campaigns. 
 
 It appears that New York was the pioneer State in 
 this kind of legislation, having enacted in 1890 a statute 
 providing for the publicity of campaign contributions 
 and expenditures. It was not, however, until 1907 that a 
 similar law was passed by the General Assembly of Iowa. 
 Moreover, a beginning has been made in Iowa in restrict- 
 ing the political activities of officeholders and public 
 employees : Iowa prohibits campaign contributions by 
 corporations and certain public officers and employees 
 and forbids the employment of paid political workers on 
 election day. But Iowa has no legislation restricting the 
 amount which may be raised or expended. Nor are there 
 any provisions for State aid to parties or candidates in 
 ■conducting the campaign.
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 13 
 
 The need and importance of corrupt practices legis- 
 lation are coming to be much more generally recognized 
 throughout the United States, and corrupt practices acts 
 are becoming correspondingly more numerous, more com- 
 prehensive, and more specific. Regarding the effect of 
 the unrestricted use of money in elections, Governor 
 Stokes in his message to the New Jersey legislature in 
 1906 says that ''the elimination of money as a controlling 
 factor in our elections is necessary to an honest expres- 
 sion of public opinion. The rich man should not be per- 
 mitted, on account of his riches, to have an advantage 
 over the man of small means in a contest for official 
 preferment. Capacity, not wealth, manhood, rather than 
 money, should be the test of fitness. Legislation can do 
 something to this end." 1 Mr. Alton B. Parker clearly 
 points out the effect of political corruption on the elector- 
 ate — which after all is the important thing to consider. 
 "There is, however", he says, "something worse if pos- 
 sible than the escape of such offenders [corporations or 
 their agents active in politics] from justice. It is the 
 gradual demoralization of voters and the dulling of the 
 public conscience caused by the efforts to make these vast 
 sums of money procure the ballots they were intended to 
 procure, corruptly and otherwise ' \ 2 Finally, Lord John 
 Russell briefly sums up the effect of controlled elections 
 upon the government as well as upon the electorate by 
 saying that "there are no defects in the distribution of 
 the franchise, however unjust, which are so destructive 
 of public virtue or the credit of our representative system 
 as these acts of bribery and corruption". 3 
 
 On the other hand, those who lack confidence in the 
 efficacy of corrupt practices legislation declare that while 
 many of the laws against election offenses are altogether
 
 14 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 admirable as to purpose, their enforcement has thus far 
 been almost a complete failure. With the elections large- 
 ly under the control of political parties — all of which 
 are at times guilty of more or less corruption — with 
 prosecuting officers often themselves beneficiaries of cor- 
 ruption or bound by loyalty to the party, and with courts 
 inclined to give persons accused of election offenses the 
 benefit of every doubt, it is said that there is no adequate 
 agency to compel the observance of the laws. Moreover, 
 it is pointed out that there is lacking a strong public op- 
 position to election offenses. Too often the average party 
 voter seems to hold that the end justifies the means, and 
 so he is inclined to excuse any act which brings triumph 
 to his party. Again, it is observed that if a defeated can- 
 didate contests the election he becomes unpopular and is 
 scorned as being a "poor loser". 
 
 While it is true that corrupt practices acts have been 
 difficult of enforcement and public opinion has not yet 
 been fully aroused to the importance of uninfluenced 
 elections, nevertheless corrupt practices legislation has 
 had beneficial results. By means of laws passed during 
 recent years — preventive rather than punitive — temp- 
 tations have been removed. Furthermore, the value of a 
 law is not measured by the number of cases successfully 
 prosecuted under it, but rather by its success in removing 
 evil conditions. The average citizen is not a law breaker ; 
 and so the prevalence of corruption is always greatly 
 diminished by a clear statutory definition of corrupt 
 practices. As suggested, the method of procedure in 
 cases of corrupt practices has been one of the serious 
 handicaps in the application of corrupt practices acts. 
 With changes in procedure, such as have been adopted in 
 Wisconsin, it is possible for public spirited men to take
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 15 
 
 a hand in the enforcement of the law and thus arouse 
 public sentiment against political corruption. Moreover, 
 that public opinion is being aroused to the need of cor- 
 rupt practices legislation and the enforcement of such 
 laws may be inferred from the public indignation against 
 Lorimer and those Senators who voted in favor of his 
 admission to the United States Senate.
 
 HISTORY OF CORRUPT PRACTICES 
 LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 THE MICHIGAN ACT OF 1827 
 
 For the historical precursors of corrupt practices legis- 
 lation in Iowa one must turn to the statute laws of the 
 Territory of Michigan and of the original Territory of 
 Wisconsin. An examination of the laws of Michigan 
 reveals the fact that as early as 1820 reference was made 
 to corrupt practices in "An Act to regulate the election 
 of a Delegate to the Congress of the United States of 
 America ' ', two sections of which read as follows : 
 
 Section 17. And be it enacted, That if any person shall be 
 guilty of any disorderly conduct at the election, or during the 
 time of the examination, canvass and enumeration of the ballots, 
 or of using corrupt, sinister, indirect or undue means to influence 
 any elector or electors in giving in his or their ballots, the in- 
 spectors, or a majority of those acting at the time, are hereby 
 authorised and required to commit the offender to imprisonment 
 for a space not exceeding thirty days: and all sheriffs, under- 
 sheriffs, constables and gaolers are hereby strictly charged and 
 required to aid and obey the inspectors herein. 
 
 Section 23. And be it enacted, That if any person shall, by 
 bribery, menace or other corrupt means or device whatsoever, 
 directly or indirectly attempt to deter any elector from giving 
 his vote, or to influence him in giving the same, and shall be 
 thereof convicted, such person shall forfeit and pay for every 
 such offence, a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, to the use 
 
 16
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 17 
 
 of the territory of Michigan, to be recovered on indictment, or by 
 information, or by action of debt in any court of record. 4 
 
 These two sections seem to overlap or conflict in that 
 both define undue influence and each prescribes a differ- 
 ent method of procedure and different punishment. It 
 would appear, however, that Section 17 is directed pri- 
 marily against disorderly conduct at elections, while 
 Section 23 attempts to prevent the intimidation of voters 
 generally. Moreover, in 1825 the provisions of the act of 
 1820 were made applicable to elections at which county 
 officials were chosen. 5 
 
 In 1827 the act of 1820 was revised under the title of 
 "An Act to provide for the election of a Delegate in the 
 Congress of the United States." This act, which was 
 approved on April 12th, contains the following provisions 
 in reference to corrupt practices: 
 
 Sec. 12. That if any person shall, directly or indirectly, give 
 or promise, any meat, drink, or other reward, with an intention 
 to procure his election, or the election of any favorite candidate, 
 he shall forfeit and pay, for every such offense, a sum not ex- 
 ceeding five hundred dollars : and if any person shall furnish an 
 elector who cannot read, with a ticket, informing him that it 
 contains a name or names different from those which are written 
 or printed therein, with an intent to induce him to vote contrary 
 to his inclination, he shall forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding 
 one hundred dollars : and if any person shall, by bribery or 
 menace, directly or indirectly attempt to deter any elector from 
 giving his vote, and shall be thereof convicted, such person shall 
 forfeit and pay, for every such offense, a sum not exceeding two 
 hundred dollars. 6 
 
 Moreover, by an act approved on April 13, 1827, it was 
 provided that the election of members of the Legislative 
 Council should be held agreeably to the act regulating
 
 18 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 the election of Delegates to Congress. 7 Thus, provisions 
 relative to corrupt practices which were first enacted in 
 reference to the election of Delegate to Congress in 1820 
 and later (1827) revised were extended in 1825 to elec- 
 tions at which county officers were chosen and in 1827 to 
 elections at which members of the Legislative Council 
 were chosen. 
 
 In this connection it is important to note that the 
 provisions of the act of April 12, 1827, were in full force 
 when the Iowa country was made a part of the Territory 
 of Michigan in 1834. And so it may be said that the first 
 corrupt practices legislation in Iowa consisted of Section 
 12 of the Michigan act of 1827, which along with other 
 laws was extended over the Iowa country by virtue of the 
 act of Congress of June 28, 1834, 8 and the act of the 
 Legislative Council of the Michigan Territory of Sep- 
 tember 6, 1834, providing for the establishment of the 
 original counties of Dubuque and Demoine. 9 
 
 TERRITORIAL LEGISLATION 1836-1846 
 
 In 1836 the Iowa country was included in the newly 
 established Territory of Wisconsin 10 and under that 
 jurisdiction it remained for two years. It does not ap- 
 pear, however, that the Legislative Assembly of the 
 original Territory of Wisconsin added anything to the 
 corrupt practices provisions already in force, except two 
 clauses in the general election law of January 18, 1838, 
 which read as follows : 
 
 And if any elector shall vote more than once at any election 
 held under the authority of this act, he shall be fined in the sum 
 of one hundred dollars, to be recovered by indictment before any 
 court of competent jurisdiction, and the whole of such fine shall
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 19 
 
 be appropriated to the use of the county in which the offense may 
 have been committed. 
 
 And if any person shall vote at any election who is not a 
 qualified voter, he shall forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding 
 fifty dollars nor less than twenty-five, to be recovered in the same 
 manner as other penalties under this act are: provided however, 
 that if such person shall have been considered by the judges of 
 the election a legal voter then such person shall not be so fined. 11 
 
 By the act of Congress of June 12, 1838, establishing 
 the independent Territory of Iowa the laws of the orig- 
 inal Territory of Wisconsin (including, of course, the 
 laws transmitted from the Michigan Territory) were de- 
 clared to be in force in the new r Territory. 12 Further- 
 more, it appears that the Legislative Assembly of the 
 Territory of Iow T a reenacted, in January, 1839, the gen- 
 eral election law which had first been passed by the 
 Wisconsin Assembly in 1838. 13 Thus, the statutory pro- 
 visions relative to corrupt practices in the Territory of 
 Iowa were at the outset the same as in the original Terri- 
 tory of Wisconsin. Moreover, the act of January 25, 
 
 1839, with its tw T o brief references to corrupt practices 
 w r as included in the Revised Statutes of 1842-1843. Xi But 
 under the provisions of the general repeal act of July 30, 
 
 1840, it seems that the corrupt practices legislation 
 (Section 12 of the act of 1827) which had been handed 
 down from the Territory of Michigan was lifted from the 
 statute books of Iowa. 15 
 
 THE ACT OF 1849 
 
 It was not until 1849, nearly three years after Iow r a 
 had been admitted into the Union, that the General As- 
 sembly passed a distinct corrupt practices act under the
 
 20 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 title of "An Act to preserve the purity of elections." 
 Moreover, this act seems to have been in part the result 
 of charges of election frauds on the part of both of the 
 leading political parties in connection with (1) the elec- 
 tions of 1846, 1847, and 1848, (2) the attempts to bribe a 
 member of the General Assembly in connection with the 
 election of United States Senators in 1846, and (3) the 
 deadlock of the General Assembly over the choice of 
 United States Senators in 1846-1848. 
 
 In reference to the election of 1846 the Iowa Capita] 
 Reporter, presenting the Democratic view, says: "Our 
 federal opponents in some parts of the state, chagrined 
 at the idea that the thousands of dollars lavished by the 
 eastern lords of the loom and spindle, through the Whig 
 committee at Washington, have failed to throw the en- 
 tire political control of Iowa into their hands, have so 
 forgotten their obligations as men and citizens of a re- 
 public, as to menace us with a refusal of the Whig House 
 to go into an election of United States Senators. This is 
 in character with those political desperadoes who shame- 
 lessly boast of purchasing freemen at the polls like cattle 
 in the shambles. " 10 Whereupon the Bloomington Herald 
 sarcastically replied that the Reporter put too low an 
 estimate on the Whigs when it judged them by the ex- 
 ample set by practical Locof ocoism. ' ' There could be no 
 slander", it declared, "so severe on the rank and file of 
 the Locof oco party as the fear expressed by the Reporter 
 and its kindred spirits, in supposing that those who vote 
 their ticket can be bought. — Think of this ye hardhanded 
 rank and file ! The leaders of your party say, shame- 
 fully say, that the Whigs have succeeded thus far in this 
 state by bribery, and corruption ! Now we ask you, in all 
 seriousness, who among you have been bought with the
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 21 
 
 'gold of eastern manufacturers?' If any, come out and 
 say so. We cannot believe it. We will not believe that 
 you are as worthless as the Reporter charges. What is 
 the condition of that press, that charges its own partizans 
 with being bought ? Reflect. ' ' 17 
 
 The Capital Reporter answered the suggestions of the 
 Herald by raising two questions: "first; whether it [the 
 Herald] denies the charge that a considerable sum of 
 money was sent into Johnson County by the Whigs, for 
 the purpose of operating upon the election; secondly, 
 whether it denies, and asks for the proof of the charge, 
 that direct offers of bribery were made by one of the 
 Whig candidates in this district. " 18 The Herald in reply 
 further emphasized the low estimate the Reporter had of 
 its own party members in suggesting that they might be 
 bribed. "The Reporter is very angry with us", it says, 
 ' ' because we drew a plain and natural inference from its 
 remarks upon this subject of 'bribery.' It stated in sub- 
 stance, that the Whigs had succeeded in obtaining all that 
 they had, in the late election, by pipe-laying, bribery, hog- 
 driving, etc. Now in the name of common sense, if there 
 was any 'bribery' done, who was bribed? Certainly not 
 the Whigs — they were right anyhow, and if any one was 
 bribed it must have been some of the Reporter's, hereto- 
 fore, political friends." 19 
 
 Again in the election of 1847 there were charges of 
 the corruption of the electorate. The Iowa Standard, 
 commenting on the Democratic victory, finds that ' ' Some 
 of our brother editors are endeavoring to account for our 
 defeat, in a well grounded apprehension that there has 
 been foul play; such as 'hog driving', 'pipe laying', etc. 
 This is very probable. — We say to our friends, never 
 despair. — Try it again. ' Better luck next time '. — ' Truth
 
 22 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 is mighty and will prevail' sooner or later. Don't waste 
 time and words about 'illegal votes', 'importations', etc. 
 Bow to the will of the apparent majority for the time be- 
 ing, like good Whigs, and acknowledge that the majority 
 is against us." 20 
 
 The election contest brought by Daniel F. Miller ques- 
 tioning the right of William Thompson to a seat in 
 Congress from the first congressional district was, per- 
 haps, an additional influence in bringing about general 
 legislation against corrupt practices. 21 This contest 
 grew out of the election of 1848 and was based on the 
 charge that the election officials had rejected legal votes 
 as being illegal and at the same time counted illegal votes. 
 Moreover, the Whig platform for 1848 calls attention to 
 the alleged political corruption of the time, declaring 
 that "under cover of an assumed love of law and order, 
 it [the Democratic party] has undertaken and cast from 
 office a citizen chosen by a large majority of the popular 
 vote, while, at the same time, it is represented in Con- 
 gress by men elected without the shadow of laws". 22 
 
 The need of corrupt practices legislation was further 
 emphasized by the charges made by Nelson King, the 
 Representative from Keokuk County, during the session 
 of the First General Assembly. King declared that at- 
 tempts were made to secure his vote for A. C. Dodge or 
 J. C. Hall as United States Senator. 23 The deadlock of 
 the General Assembly for two years in an effort to select 
 United States Senators was, perhaps, a further factor, 24 
 since during the first two years of statehood the choice 
 of United States Senators had been the chief issue lead- 
 ing to the charges of electorate and legislative corrup- 
 tion. 
 
 Due partly, it would seem, to the causes above given,
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 23 
 
 the General Assembly in 1849 passed the act entitled 
 "An Act to preserve the purity of elections" which for 
 that time was a rather comprehensive measure. More- 
 over, this important statute includes several provisions 
 that are not necessarily a part of a general corrupt prac- 
 tices act. Thus, it prescribes the qualifications and dis- 
 qualifications for voting, the method of challenging 
 persons suspected of being illegal voters, and the oath 
 or affirmation which the challenged voter was required 
 to take before he was permitted to vote, and makes pro- 
 vision that ballots containing misspelled names of candi- 
 dates were to be counted as the election judges might 
 decide, providing the names on the ballot sounded as 
 spelled. The act also provided for the punishment of 
 election judges who willfully and corruptly violated their 
 duty and of persons found guilty of stuffing the ballot 
 box. The sections particularly defining corrupt prac- 
 tices read as follows : 
 
 Sec. 2 [3]. Any person who shall vote more than once at the 
 same election, or who shall vote at any election, knowing himself 
 not qualified thus to vote, shall, upon conviction, be fined not less 
 than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, and be 
 imprisoned in the county jail not less than one month, nor more 
 than six months. 
 
 Sec. 4. Any person who shall advise, assist, or induce an- 
 other to vote twice at the same election, or to give his vote know- 
 ing him not entitled to do so, shall receive the same punishment 
 as above provided for the principal offender. 
 
 Sec. 5. Any person who by bribery shall attempt to influence 
 any elector in giving his vote, or who shall use any threat, to 
 compel such elector to vote contrary to his inclination, or to deter 
 him from giving his vote, or who shall furnish an elector who 
 cannot read, with a ticket informing him that it contains a name 
 or names different from those which are written or printed there-
 
 24 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 on, with an intent to induce him to vote contrary to his inclina- 
 tion, or who shall fraudulently or deceitfully change the ballot 
 of any elector by which he shall be caused to vote for a person 
 different from the one intended by such elector, shall, on con- 
 viction thereof, be punished in the same manner as is above 
 provided for persons who vote twice at the same election. 
 
 Sec. 4 [6]. Any judge of election who shall mark the ballot 
 of an elector for the purpose of ascertaining for whom the elector 
 voted, or open and read the ballot of any elector after it has been 
 given in, and before it shall have been deposited in the ballot box, 
 shall, on conviction thereof, be fined not less than one hundred, 
 nor more than one thousand dollars. 
 
 It was further provided that prosecutions under the 
 act were to be conducted by indictment in the district 
 court of the proper county. Moreover, the act repealed 
 only such portions of former statutes as were inconsistent 
 with its provisions. 23 
 
 PROVISIONS OF THE CODE OF 1851 
 
 The corrupt practices provisions of the Code of 1851 
 amplified the legislation of 1849 by giving more complete 
 definitions of bribery, illegal voting, and undue influence 
 and by adding a section to the provisions for guarding 
 against collusion between election officials and persons 
 attempting to commit election frauds. 26 Thus, the pro- 
 vision of the act of 1849 directed against bribery was 
 superseded by the following section: 
 
 2691. If any person offer or give a bribe to any elector for 
 the purpose of influencing his vote at any election authorized by 
 law; and if any elector entitled to vote at such election receives 
 such bribe, he shall be punished by fine not exceeding five hun- 
 dred dollars or imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding one 
 year, or by both fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the 
 court.
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 25 
 
 Furthermore, it appears that two sections were added 
 to the provisions of the act of 1849 in defining illegal 
 voting. These read as follows : 
 
 2694. If any person go or come into any county of this state 
 and vote in such county, not being a resident thereof, he shall be 
 punished by a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars or by im- 
 prisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year. 
 
 2695. If any person willfully vote who has not been a resi- 
 dent of this state for six months next preceding the election, or 
 who at the time of the election is not twenty-one years of age, or 
 who is not a citizen of the United States, or who is not duly qual- 
 ified from other disability to vote at the place where and time 
 when the vote is to be given; he shall be fined in a sum not ex- 
 ceeding three hundred dollars or imprisoned in the county jail 
 not exceeding one year. 
 
 The definition of undue influence was broadened by 
 including the following sections : 
 
 2698. If any person unlawfully and by force, or threats of 
 force, prevent or endeavor to prevent an elector from giving his 
 vote at any public election in this state, he shall be punished by 
 imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months and a 
 fine not more than two hundred dollars. 
 
 2700. If any person procure or endeavor to procure the vote 
 of any elector or the influence of any person over other electors 
 at any election, for himself or for or against any candidate, by 
 means of violence, threats of violence, or threats of withdrawing 
 custom or dealing in business or trade, or enforcing the payments 
 of debts, or bringing a suit or criminal prosecution, or any other 
 threat of injury to be inflicted by him or by his means, he shall be 
 punished by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or imprison- 
 ment in the county jail not more than one year. 
 
 Further precaution was taken to prevent dishonest 
 election officials from making agreements with those
 
 26 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 wishing to control elections by incorporating the follow- 
 ing section : 
 
 2702. "When any one who offers to vote at any election is ob- 
 jected to by an elector as a person not possessing the requisite 
 qualifications, if any judge of such election unlawfully permit 
 him to vote without producing proof of such qualification in the 
 manner directed by law, or if any such judge willfully refuse 
 the vote of any person who complies with the requisites pre- 
 scribed by law to prove his qualifications, he shall be punished by 
 fine not exceeding two hundred dollars nor less than twenty 
 dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six 
 months. 
 
 Changes were also made in the penalties prescribed. 
 Indeed, the tendency was to lessen the severity of the 
 punishment by decreasing the amount of the fine and the 
 length of the jail sentence by leaving to the court dis- 
 cretion as to the imposing of a fine or jail sentence and 
 by the omission of a minimum penalty. 
 
 LEGISLATION FEOM 1851 TO 1880 
 
 The provisions of the Code of 1851 relative to corrupt 
 practices were copied literally in the Revision of I860 21 
 and later in the Code of 1873. 28 Indeed, from the time of 
 the adoption of the Code of 1851 to the year 1880 there 
 was little if any additional legislation against corrupt 
 practices in Iowa. There were, of course, introduced in 
 the General Assembly some corrupt practices bills, which, 
 however, failed of enactment. For instance, in 1858 there 
 was passed by the House of Representatives a bill "to 
 preserve the purity of elections" 29 which was laid on the 
 table in the Senate. 30 In 1868 Mr. H. C. Rippey of the 
 House of Representatives introduced a bill prohibiting 
 betting on elections. The Journal records that this bill
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 27 
 
 was in due time laid on the table. 31 Again in 1872 a bill 
 "to more effectually protect the ballot" was allowed to 
 perish in the hands of the Committee on Elections to 
 which it had been referred. 32 
 
 As a phase of the general agitation against the liquor 
 traffic in Iowa there was introduced by Senator W. A. 
 Maginnis in 1876 a bill "to regulate the sale and gift of 
 spirituous malt and vinous liquors on election day." 33 
 This bill was referred to the Committee on Suppression 
 of Intemperance, which failed to report it to the Senate. 
 During the following session (1878) the House, by a vote 
 of 67 yeas, 28 nays, with 5 absent or not voting, passed a 
 bill "to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors within 
 two miles of cities and towns, and on election days ' \ 34 In 
 the Senate the bill was referred to the Committee on Sup- 
 pression of Intemperance, upon the recommendation of 
 which it was later referred to the Committee on Judiciary 
 where it was permitted to expire. 35 
 
 During the 1878 session of the General Assembly there 
 was also introduced in the House of Representatives "a 
 bill for an act to preserve the purity of elections." This 
 measure was referred to the Committee on Elections by 
 which it was reported without recommendation. No 
 action appears to have been taken by the House. 30 
 
 Meanwhile the liquor agitation resulted in the passing 
 of a law in 1880 which made liquor treating at or within 
 a mile of the polls on election day a misdemeanor. 37 
 During the same session there were introduced in the 
 Senate two other bills directed against election offenses : 
 one was "for an act for the prevention of bribery of 
 voters and public officers ' ', which was lost in the Senate 
 on engrossment; 38 the other, which proposed "to amend 
 section 3993 of the Code of 1873 defining offenses against
 
 28 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 the right of suffrage", passed the Senate, 3 * but died in 
 the House Committee on Judiciary. 40 
 
 LEGISLATION FROM 18S0 TO 1897 
 
 During the decade from 1880 to 1890 there was little 
 legislation against election offenses, although several 
 corrupt practices bills were introduced in the General 
 Assembly. In 1884 Senator E. J. Gault proposed "a bill 
 for an act to punish bribing and intimidation of voters 
 and to preserve the purity and freedom of elections." 
 The Committee on Elections after amending the bill re- 
 ported it favorably, but no action seems to have been 
 taken by the Senate. 41 Governor William Larrabee in 
 his inaugural address on January 14, 1886, suggested 
 the need of strengthening the corrupt practices pro- 
 visions of the law. "The successful attempts to defile 
 the purity of the ballot-box elsewhere ' ', he declared, ' ' al- 
 ready appear to exert their influence in our own State, 
 for indications of illigitimate voting are by no means 
 wanting in our larger cities, and appear to demand a 
 revision of our election laws." 42 
 
 While no action was taken directly on the Governor's 
 recommendation to revise the election law, there was in- 
 cluded in the registration act of that year a section which 
 provided for the punishment of persons intimidating or 
 trying to intimidate voters by gathering around the polls, 
 hindering or delaying voters going to or from the polls, 
 or soliciting the vote of any elector or attempting in any 
 way to influence him in casting his vote. By the same 
 act it was also made unlawful for any person who was 
 not an election judge to give or offer to give tickets to 
 anyone within one hundred feet of the polls, or for any- 
 one to display his ballot so as to show how he had voted. 43
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 29- 
 
 During the same session there was also introduced in the 
 House of Representatives a bill "to further protect the 
 purity of the ballot box" which, however, seems to have 
 failed to come to a vote. 44 
 
 In his inaugural on January 12, 1888, Governor Lar- 
 rabee again emphasized the importance of uninfluenced 
 elections. "The purity of the ballot box", he said, "is 
 the bulwark of our liberties. To defile it, whether by 
 fraud or intimidation, is to strike at the very foundation 
 of republican government." 45 Although no corrupt 
 practices legislation was enacted by the General Assem- 
 bly at this session, there was proposed in the House of 
 Representatives a bill which seems to have contained 
 provisions regarding election expenses. It passed the 
 House, 46 but did not come to a vote in the Senate. 47 
 
 Upon his election in 1889 Governor Horace Boies ex- 
 pressed a deep interest in securing legislation that would 
 permit the voter freely to cast his ballot according to his 
 own wishes. To bring about this condition the Governor 
 in his first inaugural address, which was submitted on 
 February 27, 1890, favored the secret ballot in these 
 words : — 
 
 The duty of the elector is plain : by the most sacred of human 
 obligations he is bound to bring to the aid of the government of 
 which he is a member the weight of his unbiased intelligence 
 upon every political issue his vote helps to determine. And yet 
 in countless ways the State is deprived of that which so justly 
 belongs to it. . . . Self-constituted overseers pursue those who 
 stop to consult their conscience or exercise their reason in the 
 discharge of one of the most important of duties. The strong 
 overcome the weak, employers too often control employes, the 
 rich direct the poor, and all of these rob in a degree the nation 
 and the State of that upon which their safety depends — the
 
 30 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 deliberate judgment of those who exercise the almost sacred 
 privilege of the elective franchise. . . . It is a humiliating 
 fact, and yet one that it is criminal negligence to ignore, that 
 some men are corrupt enough to buy, and others base enough to 
 sell, the noblest birthright of an American citizen. 
 
 No duty is more plain than that which demands of the legis- 
 lative department of every government the enactment of laws 
 which shall to the utmost limit of utility surround the ballot-box 
 with safeguards that will banish from all elections the corrupt 
 use of money and secure to the state the unbiased judgment of 
 each elector. This can, as I believe, be most effectually accom- 
 plished through statutes which compel the deposit of a secret 
 ballot, the contents of which can never be made known except by 
 him who deposits it, and then without evidence to corroborate his 
 statement. Such laws put it beyond the power of others to crit- 
 icize the elector's ballot who desires to keep it secret, and compels 
 those disposed to use money corruptly to rely upon the uncor- 
 roborated word of men base enough to sell their votes. 48 
 
 In response to the Governor's suggestion, several 
 bills providing for the so-called " Australian ballot" were 
 introduced in the General Assembly, but not one of them 
 came to a final vote. 49 
 
 In his second inaugural, on January 20, 1892, Gov- 
 ernor Boies again pointed out the necessity of corrupt 
 practices legislation, restating practically the same argu- 
 ments for the secret ballot. 50 Petitions from the people 
 also poured in on the General Assembly. 51 Finally, in 
 response to these suggestions the General Assembly 
 passed the general election law which provided for the 
 Australian ballot. 52 
 
 In his first inaugural Governor Boies had called at- 
 tention to the prevalence of the intimidation of employees 
 by their employers. 53 That such intimidation has been 
 and still is practiced scarcely needs proof by the citation
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 31 
 
 of specific instances. 54 To eliminate this evil if possible 
 there was included in the election law of 1892 the follow- 
 ing provisions : 
 
 Sec. 24. Any person entitled to vote at a general election in 
 this state shall, on the day of such election, be entitled to absent 
 himself from any services or employment in which he is then 
 engaged or employed for a period of two hours, between the time 
 of opening and closing the polls, and such voter shall not, be- 
 cause of so absenting himself, be liable to any penalty, or shall 
 any deduction be made on account of such absence from his usual 
 salary or wages ; provided, however, that application for such 
 leave of absence shall be made prior to the day of election. The 
 employer may specify the hours during which said employe may 
 absent himself as aforesaid. Any person or corporation who 
 shall refuse to an employe the privilege hereby conferred, or 
 shall subject an employe to a penalty or deduction of wages 
 because of the exercise of such privilege, or who shall in any 
 manner attempt to influence or control such voter as to how he 
 shall vote, by offering any reward or threatening his discharge 
 from employment, or otherwise intimidating him from a full and 
 free exercise of his right to vote, or shall, directly or indirectly, 
 violate the provisions of this section, shall be deemed guilty of a 
 misdemeanor, and be fined in any sum not less than five dollars 
 ($5) or more than one hundred dollars ($100). 55 
 
 The act of 1892 also contained various provisions 
 similar to those found in the act of 1886 guarding against 
 the intimidation of voters and against attempts to nullify 
 the secrecy of the ballot. The law made it illegal to 
 electioneer or solicit votes on election day within any 
 polling place, or within one hundred feet of the polling 
 place; to interrupt, hinder or oppose a voter while ap- 
 proaching the polls ; to interfere or attempt to interfere 
 when the voter was within the voting booth or when 
 marking his ballot ; or to endeavor to induce a voter, be-
 
 32 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 fore voting, to show how he intended to mark or had 
 marked his ballot, and to willfully hinder the voting of 
 others. Moreover, to further protect the secrecy of the 
 ballot the act contained provisions making it unlawful 
 for anyone purposely to expose or place identification 
 marks on his ballot, or to make a false statement as to his 
 inability to mark his ballot. 
 
 It was during the 1892 session that Mr. C. H. Robin- 
 son introduced in the House of Representatives "a bill 
 for an act to prevent and punish improper use of money 
 at elections." The bill passed the House by a vote of 78 
 yeas, 2 nays, with 20 absent or not voting. 50 In the Sen- 
 ate, however, the bill was not reported by the committee 
 to which it had been referred. 57 In 1894 Mr. Robinson 
 introduced a similar bill; and again his measure was 
 passed by the House. 5S It was then taken up in the 
 Senate and passed without a dissenting vote. 59 Thus 
 was enacted the first legislation in Iowa to restrict the 
 purposes for which money may be used in an election. 
 The act makes the paying for political work for a candi- 
 date, for a political party, or for any measure on election 
 day, or the receiving of pay for such work, a misdemean- 
 or. Contracts made for the conveyance of voters to the 
 polls are, however, specifically exempted. The same act 
 also declares unlawful agreements to pay or receive re- 
 muneration for refraining from voting or advising others 
 to refrain from voting. 60 
 
 The chapter of the Code of 1897 "On Offenses Against 
 the Right of Suffrage" 01 includes the provisions of the 
 Code of 1851* 2 and of the act of 1894 for the prevention 
 and punishment of the improper use of money at elec- 
 tions; 63 while the provisions against corrupt practices 
 found in the general election law of the Code of 1897 %i
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 33 
 
 are very similar to those of the general election law en- 
 acted in 1892. 05 The Code of 1897 also includes pro- 
 visions prohibiting the keeping of saloons open on 
 election day 66 and betting on election results. CT 
 
 EECENT LEGISLATION 1897 TO 1912 
 
 In 1898 Senator Junkin proposed a bill denning cor- 
 rupt practices in elections and providing penalties for its 
 violation, upon which, nevertheless, no action seems to 
 have been taken. GS There was, however, incorporated in 
 an act passed by the Twenty-seventh General Assembly, 
 creating the Board of Control of State Institutions, a 
 section prohibiting political activity or political contri- 
 butions on the part of members of the Board or any 
 officer or employee of an institution under the control of 
 the Board. 69 
 
 In 1902 Mr. William G. Kerr introduced in the House 
 of Representatives a rather comprehensive but somewhat 
 loosely drawn measure directed against corrupt prac- 
 tices. 70 This bill placed a limitation on political contri- 
 butions and expenditures by candidates for the United 
 States House of Representatives, by candidates for State 
 elective offices, or by other persons in their behalf. The 
 amount of the contribution or expenditure permitted was 
 graduated according to the number of votes cast for the 
 office. To secure his nomination or election, or both, the 
 candidate or others working for him might contribute or 
 expend in a district having not more than 5000 voters a 
 sum not to exceed $100 ; for each 100 voters over 5000 and 
 under 25,000, $1.50; and for each 100 voters over 25,000 
 and under 50,000, $1.00. Contributions or expenditures 
 in excess of these sums voided the election of the person 
 making- it.
 
 34 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 The Kerr bill also provided that a candidate should 
 file a sworn itemized statement of contributions and ex- 
 penditures for his nomination or election within fifteen 
 days after the primary or election with the clerk of the 
 county in which he resided and a duplicate with the board 
 or officer issuing his certificate of election. Failure to 
 observe this provision was to be punished by a fine not 
 to exceed $1,000. Furthermore, the certificate of election 
 was not to be issued, salary paid, or permission given to 
 any person to enter upon the duties of the office to which 
 he had been elected until the provisions of the law had 
 been complied with. 
 
 A political committee was defined as "every two or 
 more persons who shall be elected, appointed or associ- 
 ated for the purpose, wholly or in part, of directing the 
 raising, collection or disbursement of money, and every 
 two or more persons who shall cooperate in the raising, 
 collection or disbursement of money used or to be used 
 to further or defeat the nomination or election of any 
 person or any class or number of persons to public office 
 by popular vote, or to further or defeat any measure or 
 proposition submitted to popular vote". Every political 
 committee was required to choose a treasurer before be- 
 ing permitted to receive or expend money for political 
 purposes. 
 
 All money collected or expended by a political com- 
 mittee or a member of the committee must first pass 
 through the hands of the treasurer, who was required to 
 keep a detailed account of money received or expended. 
 All other persons receiving or expending more than 
 twenty dollars for political purposes, unless received 
 from or paid to the treasurer of the committee, were also 
 required to keep itemized accounts of receipts and ex-
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 35 
 
 penditures. These statements were to be filed within 
 twenty days after the primary, convention, or election in 
 the office of the clerk of the county in which the treasurer 
 lived. Any one receiving money or other thing of value 
 from a political committee to expend for it was required 
 to file a statement with the treasurer within eight days 
 after the primary, convention, or election. 
 
 Moreover, according to the provisions of the Kerr bill 
 no claim against a candidate or political committee might 
 be paid unless presented for payment within eight days 
 after the primary, convention, or election, unless the dis- 
 trict court on investigation decided there was good reason 
 for the delay. An additional statement must then be filed 
 by the treasurer, unless such item had already been in- 
 cluded in the statement filed. Violation of these pro- 
 visions of the bill by the treasurer, political committee, or 
 other person required to keep accounts, constituted a mis- 
 demeanor. The filed statements or duplicates were to be 
 kept for four years, and the total receipts and expend- 
 itures published in two newspapers of opposite political 
 parties in the county in which the nominated or elected 
 person resided. 
 
 At any time during the term of an elective officer (ex- 
 cept members of the General Assembly or of Congress) 
 any elector might present a written application, verified 
 by his affidavit, to the Attorney General pointing out 
 some violation of the provisions of the proposed law or 
 some other law by such officer, his agent, or political 
 committee, or agent of such committee of the party of 
 which the officer was the nominee, to secure his nomina- 
 tion or election. On the ground of this violation the elec- 
 tor might then request the Attorney General to bring 
 action against the officer for his removal. The applicant
 
 36 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 was required to put up a bond of $1,000 as a guarantee of 
 good faith. 
 
 Within ten days of the filing of the application and 
 bond it was the duty of the Attorney General to bring 
 action or order the county attorney of the proper county 
 to bring action against the person accused. The county 
 attorney, if so ordered, was required to bring action with- 
 in ten days after being notified by the Attorney General. 
 If the Attorney General or county attorney failed to take 
 action the applicant was given power to bring action, but 
 at his own expense. Such cases were to be given prefer- 
 ence over all other civil actions on the docket of any court 
 of the State in which the suit was brought. If the charges 
 against the officeholder were sustained, the election was 
 voided, the vacancy filled as directed by law, and the de- 
 fendant obliged to pay the costs. If the charges were not 
 sustained, the plaintiff had to pay the costs. Testifying 
 in such cases was made compulsory, but witnesses were 
 granted immunity. The election of a member of the Gen- 
 eral Assembly might also be contested by any elector, but 
 the contest was to be decided as prescribed by law then 
 in force. 
 
 This bill, which is by far the most complete corrupt 
 practices legislation thus far proposed in the General 
 Assembly of Iowa, was on motion of Mr. Kerr himself 
 dropped from the calendar. 71 
 
 Several bills had been introduced during previous ses- 
 sions of the General Assembly providing for primaries. 
 It was under the leadership and at the suggestion of 
 Governor Cummins that the first primary law was en- 
 acted. In his message to the Thirtieth General Assembly 
 primary legislation and the inclusion in such legislation 
 of penalties for fraud, intimidation, and bribery were
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 37 
 
 recommended. 72 Responding to this suggestion the legis- 
 lature passed an act providing for primaries in counties 
 having a population of 75,000 or more. This act declares 
 the offering, giving, or receiving of bribes, illegal voting, 
 or aiding illegal voters, to be offenses against the pri- 
 mary. To agree to perform any service in the interest of 
 any candidate in the primary for pay or to receive pay for 
 work done are also made unlawful. Conveyance of voters 
 to the polls for a reasonable remuneration, however, is 
 permitted. 73 
 
 During the 1904 session of the General Assembly va- 
 rious other bills directed against corrupt practices were 
 introduced in the House of Representatives, but none of 
 them were placed on the statute books. Mr. J. F. Lundt 
 proposed a bill making it a misdemeanor for a candidate 
 directly or indirectly to use or distribute money to buy 
 cigars, beer, or whiskey to secure votes. As a penalty 
 the bill provided for the revoking of the offender's can- 
 didacy, depriving him of his right to vote at the following 
 election, and for imposing a fine. 74 
 
 Early in the same session Mr. L. D. Teter introduced 
 a bill directed against election offenses, 75 but later with- 
 drew it and incorporated its provisions in a more com- 
 prehensive measure. This more complete bill prohibited 
 during a primary or election campaign the use of liquor, 
 cigars, refreshments, money, railroad passes, or "any- 
 thing of value whatsoever" to influence voters, and 
 provided for the filing of statements of campaign ex- 
 penditures by the candidates in primaries or elections 
 with the auditor of the county in which the candidate 
 lived. These statements were to include money spent by 
 or for the candidate and the assessment of his political 
 party. It contained the further proviso that political 
 
 9618^
 
 38 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 assessments were permissible if the money was used for 
 paying the expenses of holding political meetings. The 
 amount of money which a candidate might be assessed 
 by the political organization was fixed in the same 
 manner as the limitation on a candidate's total expend- 
 itures in the Kerr bill of 1902. As a penalty for the 
 violation of its provisions by a candidate the bill pro- 
 vided for the voiding of his nomination or election. One- 
 half of the fines collected through violations were to be 
 paid to the informant in each case. 76 
 
 Another bill introduced in 1904 had, it would seem, a 
 two-fold object in view: to compel careless electors to 
 come out and vote; and to strengthen the law of 1894 
 directed against corrupt agreements to refrain from 
 voting. This bill made failure to vote on the part of an 
 elector who was physically able a misdemeanor and 
 barred the offender from exercising his right to the fran- 
 chise for two consecutive elections. 77 
 
 Not discouraged by the failure of his earlier measure, 
 Mr. Teter introduced in the House during the next ses- 
 sion (1906) a bill containing the same provisions regard- 
 ing the publicity of campaign expenditures and the 
 limitation as to the amount of political assessment of 
 candidates. It added, however, a provision permitting 
 payment for the conveyance of voters to the polls out of 
 money raised through the assessment of candidates. 78 
 Two similar measures were also proposed by Mr. J. I. 
 Nichols. One provided for the publicity of campaign 
 contributions and expenditures on the part of political 
 officials handling campaign funds. 70 This bill was later 
 withdrawn. 80 The other bill made it a misdemeanor for 
 political officials conducting a campaign to spend cam- 
 paign funds for intoxicating liquor. 81 This bill was in-
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 39 
 
 definitely postponed on the recommendation of the 
 Committee on Judiciary. 82 
 
 In the meantime the New York insurance scandal and 
 the publication of the Harriman-Roosevelt correspond- 
 ence had called the attention of the people throughout 
 the country to the political activity of corporations and 
 to the necessity of ousting them from politics. As a 
 means to this end laws were passed in various States 
 restricting or prohibiting corporation contributions to 
 campaign funds, as well as legislation requiring publicity 
 of political contributions and expenditures. This nation- 
 wide agitation directed the attention of the people of 
 Iowa to their own political condition. Here the railroads 
 had been especially active in politics — a fact that is well 
 brought out by Governor Cummins in his message to the 
 General Assembly in 1906. "In this state", the Gov- 
 ernor asserted, "the railway companies are the political 
 corporations, and while they have not introduced here all 
 the methods which have been observed elsewhere, it is 
 manifest that they have intended to direct the course of 
 the state, and that they still intend to direct it if it be 
 within their power." 83 
 
 The situation as regards railroad domination in Iowa 
 politics was further indicated by Mr. Leon Brown in the 
 Register and Leader in discussing the reason for passing 
 the bill prohibiting corporation contributions to cam- 
 paign funds. "It was the demand of the people", he 
 writes, "that the railroads get out of politics in this 
 state that gave birth to primary agitation and it was their 
 persistent and intolerable participation in the effort to 
 control politics through conventions that invited the 
 Peterson bill to prohibit them from financing campaigns 
 again in Iowa". 84 The same paper says:
 
 40 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 Divorcement of polities and corporations has been made as 
 complete as human-made law makes possible. The Peterson bill 
 to prohibit corporations from contributing to campaign funds of 
 political parties and to the campaigns of candidates for office 
 both before the primary and the general election, supplements 
 the primary bill. Not again, it is thought, will Iowa see the spec- 
 tacle of railroad corporations financing a campaign to defeat for 
 nomination and for election a man devoted to the mission of 
 securing legislation in restriction of corporations. Never again 
 will the railroads spend $250,000 to defeat a single candidate for 
 office in Iowa. S5 
 
 That the people of the State were becoming aroused 
 over the situation is evidenced by the platforms of the 
 two leading political parties in 1906. The Republican 
 platform adopted at the State convention, which was 
 held on August 1st, declared that "we are unalterably 
 opposed to the domination of corporate influences in 
 public affairs. We favor the enactment of stringent 
 statutes, to purge the politics of our state and nation 
 from the corrupting influences of corporate power. And 
 we pledge ourselves to the enactment of such laws as will 
 render it unprofitable and unpopular for corporations to 
 engage in politics or in any way contribute to political 
 campaigns." 86 The Democratic platform adopted at the 
 State convention, which was held at Waterloo on August 
 7th, contained a similar plank. "We believe", it is as- 
 serted, "the politics of our state should be unhampered 
 by the influence of corporate power and are in favor of 
 stringent laws punishing all corporations or persons rep- 
 resenting them who contribute campaign funds to any 
 political organization. " S7 
 
 Governor Cummins, elected on an anti-corporation 
 platform, also gave expression to the popular protest in
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 41 
 
 his message to the General Assembly which met on Janu- 
 ary 14, 1907 ; and he recommended legislation to remedy 
 the condition. 
 
 That it has become a custom with corporations of various 
 kinds to make contributions to accomplish or defeat the nomina- 
 tion of candidates for public office, and to assist in the election 
 of candidates for public office, is so well known and has been so 
 completely established that I need not pause to prove its exist- 
 ence. There are many reasons, of the weightiest character, which 
 demand an immediate prohibition against such misuse of cor- 
 porate funds, coupled with a penalty of imprisonment for the 
 violation of the law: First, the growing tendency to use money 
 in political campaigns is subversive of the fundamental prin- 
 ciples of good government, for it not only destroys purity of 
 motive, but it overthrows the safety which is always found in 
 individual and independent action. Second, it is a plain theft 
 from every stockholder who does not give his assent to the con- 
 tribution, and the misappropriation is peculiarly obnoxious be- 
 cause it oftentimes puts the money of a stockholder at work for 
 a candidate whose success the stockholder does not desire. Third, 
 the practice gives to the corporation an influence in public af- 
 fairs simply because of the money contributed — an influence 
 which is necessarily both selfish and vicious. Corporations 
 should, of their own motion, vigorously exclude themselves from 
 politics, and the most effective way to give them strength to resist 
 temptation is to fix a penalty for participation, so severe that the 
 honest course will be the most attractive one. I recommend, 
 with all my earnestness, the enactment of a measure upon this 
 subject that will stop, at once and forever, so odious a misuse of 
 corporate property. 88 
 
 With public opinion thus clearly crystallized, the Gen- 
 eral Assembly was ready for action. On January 28, 
 1907, Senator C. E. Peterson introduced in the Senate 
 a bill to prohibit corporation contributions to campaign
 
 42 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 funds. This bill was referred to the Committee on Cor- 
 porations of which Senator Peterson was a member. 
 The committee reported the bill for passage, but with 
 certain amendments. These amendments considerably 
 strengthened the bill by making its provisions applicable 
 to primaries as well as elections, by adding safeguards 
 against indirect corporate political contributions, by in- 
 cluding corporate bribery of public officials, and by modi- 
 fying the immunity clause for witnesses in permitting 
 the prosecution of witnesses guilty of perjury. Slight 
 changes were also made by unanimous consent in the 
 wording of the amendments before the bill passed the 
 Senate. 89 
 
 The importance of the Peterson bill and the signif- 
 icance of the amendments which were made to it in the 
 Senate warrants its presentation in full as first intro- 
 duced and later amended by the Senate. The omissions 
 are bracketed, while changes suggested by the committee 
 and adopted by the Senate are italicised. 
 
 A Bill for an act prohibiting any corporation doing business 
 within the state or any officer, agent or representative thereof 
 acting for such corporation, from giving or contributing any 
 money, property, labor or thing of value, to any member of any 
 political committee, party or employe thereof, or to any candi- 
 date for any office, for campaign expenses or political purpose 
 whatsoever [.], or to any person, partnership or corporation for 
 the purpose of influencing or causing said person, partnership or 
 corporation to influence any elector of the state to vote for or 
 against any candidate for public office or candidate for nomina- 
 tion for any public office or to any public officer for the purpose 
 of influencing his official action. And prohibiting any member 
 of any political committee, party or employe thereof, or any can- 
 didate for any office from soliciting, requesting or knowingly
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 43- 
 
 receiving any such contribution from any corporation for cam- 
 paign expenses or political purpose whatsoever, and providing a 
 penalty for the violation thereof. 
 
 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Iowa: 
 
 Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any corporation doing 
 business within the state, or any officer, agent or representative 
 thereof acting for such corporation, to give or contribute any 
 money, property, labor or thing of value, directly or indirectly, 
 to any member of any political committee, political party, or 
 employe or representative thereof or to any candidate for any 
 public office or candidate for nomination to any public office or 
 to the representative of such candidate, for campaign expenses 
 or for any political purpose whatsoever [.], or to any person, 
 partnership or corporation for the purpose of influencing or 
 causing such person, partnership or corporation to influence any 
 elector of the state to vote for or against any candidate for public 
 office or for nomination for public office or to any public officer 
 for the purpose of influencing his official action. 
 
 Sec. 2. It shall be unlawful for any member of any political 
 committee, political party, or employe or representative thereof, 
 or candidate for any office, or representative of such candidate, 
 to solicit, request or knowingly receive from any corporation or 
 any officer, agent, or representative thereof, any money, property 
 or thing of value belonging to such corporation, for campaign 
 expenses or for any political purpose whatsoever. 
 
 Sec. 3. No person, and no agent or officer of any corporation 
 within the purview of this act shall be privileged from testifying 
 in relation to anything herein prohibited ; and no person having 
 so testified shall be liable to any prosecution or punishment for 
 any offense concerning which he is required to give his testimony 
 [or produce any documentary evidence.], provided that he shall 
 not be exempted from prosecution and punishment for perjury 
 committed in so testifying. 
 
 Sec. 4. Any person convicted of a violation of any of the 
 provisions of this act shall be punished by imprisonment in the-
 
 44 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 county jail not less than six months or more than one year, and 
 in the discretion of the court, by fine not exceeding one thousand 
 dollars ( $1000.00 ). 90 
 
 The bill as amended passed the Senate without a dis- 
 senting vote — only three members being absent or not 
 voting. In the House of Representatives the bill was 
 referred to the Committee on Judiciary. That there 
 might be no question raised regarding the freedom of the 
 press in general, and in discussing political issues, can- 
 didates, and public officers in particular, the committee 
 recommended that the bill be amended by striking out the 
 period at the end of Section 1, and inserting a comma 
 followed by the clause: "but nothing in this act shall be 
 construed to restrain or abridge the liberty of the press 
 or prohibit the consideration and discussion therein of 
 candidacies, nominations, public officers or political ques- 
 tions. " This amendment was adopted. But Represent- 
 ative J. F. OffilPs proposition that the bill be amended 
 so as to apply only to railroads was voted down. The 
 bill as amended then passed the House of Representatives 
 by a vote of 85 yeas and 9 nays, with 14 absent or not 
 voting. 01 The Senate agreed to the House amendment, 
 and the bill as thus amended received the Governor's 
 signature on March 26, 1907. 9 - 
 
 To supplement the act prohibiting corporate cam- 
 paign contributions Governor Cummins favored legis- 
 lation requiring the publicity of campaign contributions 
 and expenditures. In recommending such action to the 
 Thirty-second General Assembly the Governor said : 
 
 I recognize that there must be some expenditure of money in 
 <every political campaign, whether for nomination or for election. 
 There are legitimate purposes for which money can be expended, 
 and to this extent, when contributed by individuals, there can be
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 45> 
 
 no criticism of the practice. "We will all agree, however, that the 
 expenditure of money in political controversies has passed be- 
 yond a fair and reasonable limit. Other countries and other 
 States have attempted to restrict the use of money within honest 
 bounds through that very efficient corrective — publicity. I 
 think the State of Iowa should do likewise, and I strongly recom- 
 mend a law that will require not only political committees, but 
 candidates for nomination and for election, to publish their 
 expenditures. 93 
 
 Following this recommendation, Mr. L. D. Teter again 
 introduced a bill providing for the publicity of campaign 
 expenditures, which contained the provisions of his bill 
 of 1906 and in addition a section similar to a provision 
 of the Nichols bill requiring a statement of expenditures 
 by political officials. Mr. Teter 's bill was referred to the 
 Committee on Elections, which failed to report it. 94 
 
 The committee, however, reported a bill of its own 
 drafting on the publicity of campaign expenditures. Mr. 
 Teter moved to substitute his own bill, with the last sec- 
 tion, which limited the amount of a candidate's party 
 assessment and the purposes for which money so raised 
 might be used, omitted. The substitute was lost, and the 
 bill with some proposed changes was again referred to 
 the Committee on Elections. The committee, having 
 again considered the bill, reported a substitute bill which 
 passed the House of Representatives without a dissent- 
 ing vote. 95 In the Senate the vote was 32 yeas and 7 nays, 
 with 11 absent or not voting. 96 
 
 The act as passed is entitled "An Act to amend title 
 six, Chapter 3 of the Code, relating to elections", and 
 applies to primaries and to municipal and general elec- 
 tions. By its provisions candidates are required to file a 
 sworn itemized statement of all contributions and ex-
 
 ,6 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 penditures with the proper official within ten days after 
 the primary or election. A statement is also required 
 from the committee chairmen of the various political 
 committees. These statements are open to public in- 
 spection at all times, and remain on file as a part of the 
 permanent records in the offices where filed. The act 
 also contains a section prohibiting treating "in or about 
 the polling place" at municipal, primary, and general 
 elections, and makes it the duty of the election officials to 
 enforce the provisions. 97 
 
 As passed the bill was made clearer in regard to the 
 disposal of the publicity statements. The original bill 
 merely provided for the filing of the statement with the 
 auditor of the county where the candidate or political 
 officer lived. Moreover, it restricted the use of money 
 raised by the assessment of candidates to paying the 
 expenses of political meetings and the conveyance of 
 voters to and from the polls. The act would seem to have 
 been weakened in that the original provision prohibiting 
 treating in a primary or election campaign was struck 
 out and the provision prohibiting treating near the polls 
 on primary or election day only was substituted. 
 
 During the 1907 session a State-wide primary law was 
 also enacted. This act copies the provisions of the pri- 
 mary act of 1904 regarding corrupt practices except that 
 it makes illegal the paying or offering to pay for political 
 work for a candidate as well as receiving pay for such 
 work. The provision specifically permitting the making 
 of contracts for the conveyance of voters to the polls is 
 eliminated, and instead there is substituted a provision 
 permitting the making of contracts with newspapers for 
 political announcements and the paying for securing sig- 
 natures to nominating petitions. 98
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 47 
 
 As a part of the progressive legislation of the 1907 
 session of the General Assembly there was also enacted a 
 law providing for the so-called commission form of gov- 
 ernment for municipalities. The condition leading to the 
 passage of this act was the corruption and inefficiency in 
 the administration of the larger cities of the State under 
 the old system of municipal government. Under the old 
 plan of city government it had been easy to build up po- 
 litical machines through the control of elections. John J. 
 Hamilton describes the means by which this was made 
 possible in Des Moines in these words : 
 
 The methods, too, by which certain aldermen secured and 
 held their places in the council were open to censure. Bribery 
 of voters was shamelessly practiced. Ballot boxes had been 
 stolen or unlawfully exposed to manipulation before the count 
 of votes. The machinery of elections and nominations was often 
 kept in the hands of reckless and unscrupulous men and in some 
 cases of actual criminals. Judges of election or agents of "the 
 city hall ring" unlawfully admitted to seats beside them were 
 seen to "kill" ballots unfriendly to the ruling cabal by putting 
 additional pencil marks upon them so that they must be thrown 
 out. Returns from the "tough" precincts were, in close elec- 
 tions, held back until the machine could determine how many 
 votes were needed to hold it in power ; which number, with a safe 
 margin, was suspiciously forthcoming. 90 
 
 As a part of the plan to secure popular control of 
 municipal government, the commission government stat- 
 ute contains provisions similar to the primary act of the 
 same year prohibiting (1) the offering or receiving of 
 bribes, (2) illegal voting, and (3) knowingly aiding il- 
 legal voting at municipal elections. The commission act 
 differs from the primary act in its provisions against 
 paid political workers in that it merely penalizes the
 
 48 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 person who agrees to work for a candidate for pay. To 
 further lessen the possibility of the building up of a polit- 
 ical machine, secure more efficient service, and prevent 
 the assessment of officeholders the act provides that : 
 
 Any officer or employe of such city, who, by solicitation or 
 otherwise, shall exert his influence directly or indirectly to in- 
 fluence other officers or employes of such city to adopt his po- 
 litical views or to favor any particular person or candidate for 
 office, or who shall in any manner contribute money, labor, or 
 other valuable thing to any person for election purposes, shall be 
 guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished 
 by a fine not exceeding three hundred dollars ($300) or by im- 
 prisonment in the county jail not exceeding thirty (30) days. 100 
 
 Other bills were introduced in the House of Repre- 
 sentatives in the 1907 session, but none of them were 
 enacted into law. Mr. W. P. Alfred proposed a bill to 
 alter the code definition of bribery by making it include 
 treating. 101 A measure to prohibit treating by a candi- 
 date before "any nomination or any proposed nomina- 
 tion or previous to or during any election", and for the 
 publicity of campaign contributions and expenditures, 
 was introduced by C. B. Paul. 102 This bill proposed also 
 to limit the purpose for which money might be used, to 
 promote the nomination or election of a candidate, to the 
 bona fide personal expenses of the candidate and the ex- 
 penses of holding political meetings. Even such expend- 
 itures were to be limited to certain fixed amounts, 
 according to the office sought by the candidate. Thus a 
 candidate for a State office might pay out a sum not to 
 exceed $750, while a candidate for a school office was not 
 permitted to spend more than $25. The Paul bill, how- 
 ever, seems to have died in the Committee on Elections. 103 
 
 During the session of 1909 there was introduced in
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 49 
 
 the House of Representatives a bill to limit the amount a 
 candidate might spend to secure his nomination or elec- 
 tion to five per cent of a term's salary. The bill, being 
 unfavorably reported by the committee to which it had 
 been referred, was indefinitely postponed by the House. 104 
 In the Senate it appears that Mr. E. G. Moon proposed 
 an amendment to the election law so as to provide for the 
 filing by the chairmen of the various political committees 
 of statements of campaign contributions and expend- 
 itures five days before an election and ten days after the 
 election. This bill was lost by a vote of 24 to 19. 105 
 An act passed at the 1911 session of the General As- 
 sembly (being amendatory to the law of 1907 providing 
 for commission government for cities) further empha- 
 sizes the desire of the people to take municipal employees 
 out of politics and protect them from political assess- 
 ments by including a provision prohibiting campaign 
 contributions by members of the fire and police depart- 
 ments of commission governed cities. 106 In the Senate 
 there was introduced a bill "prohibiting candidates for 
 office from giving away, paying for, or treating to any 
 drinks, cigars or other refreshments, or paying or pro- 
 viding for the admission to shows, entertainments or 
 other performances and providing a penalty therefor." 
 This bill was, on the recommendation of the Committee 
 on Elections, indefinitely postponed. 107 In the House of 
 Representatives it appears that Mr. A. A. Lenocker pro- 
 posed a bill for compulsory voting at general and city 
 elections. Electors under seventy years of age, and not 
 having a reasonable excuse, were to pay a "tax" to the 
 county of $3.00. The bill was referred to the Committee 
 on Elections, whose report to indefinitely postpone the 
 bill was adopted by the House. 108
 
 ir 
 
 AN ANALYSIS OF CORRUPT PRACTICES 
 LEGISLATION IN IOWA 
 
 BRIBERY 
 
 Bribery may be defined as the deliberate purchase or 
 sale of votes for money or other consideration. Its pur- 
 pose in connection with elections is to secure for the 
 candidate or party the vote of a member of an opposing 
 party or of a voter who claims no party affiliations. At 
 a primary, however, the choice being between candidates 
 for the party nomination, the purpose is to secure the 
 support of one's party members. 
 
 Bribery is an offense not readily susceptible of direct 
 proof, as it is usually the result of a bargain between two 
 persons both of whom are interested in keeping the fact 
 secret. Other reasons making the enforcement of any 
 legislation against bribery difficult have already been 
 suggested. Thus, while Iowa has enacted legislation 
 directed against bribery, cases coming before the courts 
 are not numerous. Indeed, it would be difficult to deter- 
 mine to what extent bribery has and does prevail in Iowa. 
 It is doubtless true that there has been considerable 
 traffic in votes in our larger cities — perhaps more espe- 
 cially in connection with municipal elections. Here the 
 inducements for bribery are great : political machines to 
 keep themselves in power, or public utility corporations 
 uniting with the vicious elements to keep their agents in 
 power, have frequently resorted to vote buying and other 
 
 50
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 51 
 
 forms of corruption. Outside of the larger cities, how- 
 ever, it is doubtful if there has been much bribery. 
 Party feeling has always been strong in our rural com- 
 munities, and elections throughout the State have not 
 usually been considered close politically — except in some 
 of the congressional districts. 
 
 According to the Territorial laws of Michigan any 
 person who directly or indirectly attempted to influence 
 a voter through bribery was liable to a fine of not to 
 exceed $1,000 j 1 " 9 but by the legislation of 1827 this sum 
 was reduced to $200. 1X " 
 
 Iowa legislation against bribery dates from the year 
 1849, when the law made bribery punishable by a fine of 
 from $100 to $1,000 and a jail sentence of from one to six 
 months. 111 The Code of 1851 broadens the earlier defini- 
 tion of bribery by including the offering and receiving of 
 bribes, and at the same time fixes the penalty for bribery 
 at a fine not to exceed $500 or imprisonment in the county 
 jail for a term not to exceed one year, or both. 112 In 
 municipal elections in commission governed cities per- 
 sons giving or receiving bribes in the form of money ' ' or 
 other consideration ' ' may be fined from $100 to $500 and 
 also given a jail sentence of from ten to ninety days. 113 
 The act regulating primary elections provides as penal- 
 ties for the offering or giving or receiving of a bribe in 
 the form of money or other consideration the same fine or 
 a jail sentence of from thirty days to six months. 114 
 
 Moreover, the Attorney General's office has inter- 
 preted the bribery provision of the law to mean that the 
 giving of pencils, pens, or other things of value, however 
 slight, to voters for the sake of influencing their vote 
 constitutes bribery. On the other hand, the Supreme 
 Court has held that it does not constitute bribery, at an
 
 52 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 election to relocate a county seat, for persons interested 
 in the location at a particular place to give or furnish 
 facilities for the convenience of the whole county. 
 
 Some party members who would refuse to accept a 
 bribe for voting the ticket of the opposing party have 
 been willing to accept money for refraining from voting. 
 To reach this class of offenders an act was passed in 1894 
 providing that a person who makes an agreement with 
 another to pay or receive money or other valuable thing 
 for not voting, or for inducing another voter not to vote, 
 is guilty of a misdemeanor and may be fined from $50 to 
 $300 or sentenced to a term in jail not to exceed ninety 
 days. 115 
 
 Unless the briber has some means of knowing whether 
 the purchased vote is delivered, money expended for 
 bribery is, of course, fruitless. To ascertain how ballots 
 have been cast, various methods have been resorted to — 
 such as marking ballots, showing of the ballots by the 
 voter, or collusion with the election officials. To fortify 
 bribery laws provisions are therefore necessary to pre- 
 serve the secrecy of the ballot. An act of 1885 providing 
 for the registration of voters for municipal elections con- 
 tained a section for this purpose, making it illegal for a 
 voter to expose his ballot in such a way as to intentionally 
 show how he voted or for any one to give or offer tickets 
 to any one not an election judge within one hundred feet 
 of the polls. It was made the duty of the election judges 
 to prevent the violation of these provisions by posting- 
 notices within one hundred feet of the polling place and 
 ' ' in other ways ' ', and at the same time to cause the arrest 
 of offenders. Violation of the act constituted a misde- 
 meanor, penalized by a fine of from $50 to $200 or by a jail 
 sentence of from twenty days to six months, or both. 110
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 53 
 
 The general election law of 1892 which provides for 
 the Australian ballot — the adoption of which was for the 
 purpose of eliminating bribery and intimidation — con- 
 tains similar provisions for maintaining the secrecy of 
 the ballot. The act defines as election offenses the fol- 
 lowing: (1) purposely exposing one's ballot; (2) attempt- 
 ing to induce a voter to show how he intends to mark or 
 has marked his ballot; (3) placing on the ballot any 
 identification marks; (4) collusion between the parties 
 concerned in a bribery agreement and election officials 
 by the voters making false statements regarding their 
 inability to mark the ballot. All these acts are punish- 
 able by a fine of from $5 to $100 or a jail sentence of from 
 ten to thirty days, or both. 117 
 
 The Code of 1897 contains the provisions of the law of 
 1892, except that it does not charge election judges with 
 the enforcement of the statute and incorporates the def- 
 inition and penalty for bribery as given in the Code of 
 1851 along with the provisions of the law of 1894 regard- 
 ing payments for refraining from voting or inducing 
 others to refrain from voting. Since the primary act and 
 the act providing for commission government in certain 
 cities were passed after the enactment of the Code of 
 1897 their provisions are of course not found therein. 
 
 In interpreting the section of the Code of 1897 pro- 
 hibiting the placing of distinguishing marks on the ballot 
 by voters, the Supreme Court of Iowa has held that where 
 a voter marked the squares opposite each candidate's 
 name on a party ticket and also made a mark in the circle 
 at the head of the other party ticket, the latter could not 
 be considered as an identification mark. 118 However, a 
 ballot crossed in the squares opposite all the names of a 
 party ticket — except for township trustee which was left
 
 54 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 blank and a cross inserted in the square opposite the 
 blank for township trustee in another party ticket where 
 there was no candidate for township trustee — the ballot 
 was considered as marked for identification purposes 
 since there was no apparent reason for such mark except 
 to serve as an identification mark (Morrison vs. Pepper- 
 man, 112 Iowa 471). Furthermore, where the unauthor- 
 ized mark is not of a character to be used readily for the 
 purpose of identification the ballot ought to be counted ; 
 but where the unauthorized marks are made deliberately 
 and may be used as a means of identifying the ballot it 
 ought to be rejected (Whittam vs. Zahorik, 91 Iowa 23). 
 While bribery is usually the result of a bargain be- 
 tween two persons, bribery en masse is possible. Thus, 
 the Supreme Court has held that a promise made by a 
 candidate for a county office to serve for a less amount 
 than the fees provided by law and to turn the balance 
 into the county treasury as an inducement to get votes is 
 indirect bribery since most of the voters are taxpayers. 
 Hence it was held that the offer not only invalidated the 
 votes cast by those influenced by the offer, but also voided 
 the election of the offending candidate. 110 In rendering 
 this opinion the Supreme Court pointed out the evil of 
 such a system of bidding for office as tending to divert 
 the elector's attention from the personal merits of the 
 candidates to the price to be paid for the office. Aside 
 from the evil effect on the attitude of the voters in respect 
 to their duties as citizens, it would lead, the court held, to 
 the election of incapable and untrustworthy officers. 
 
 UNDUE INFLUENCE 
 
 Undue influence may be defined as the bringing to 
 bear of direct or indirect pressure on a voter to influence
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 55 
 
 him in casting his ballot. It may take the form of brute 
 force or violence, or threat to use such force or violence, 
 or, as is at present more usual, of open or veiled threat of 
 pecuniary, social, or spiritual injury. The difficulty of 
 reaching this form of corruption through legislation is at 
 once apparent. The employer through a casual hint or 
 conversation gives his employees to understand what will 
 happen or not happen if the election goes a certain way ; 
 sample ballots marked to indicate the candidates favored 
 by the employer are distributed among the employees ; 12 ° 
 employees are sent out on the employer's time to work 
 with other employees; false reports are circulated as to 
 the attitude of candidates on certain questions, such as 
 the labor question or the church; candidates of only a 
 certain party are permitted to address the workers in 
 shops or factories; or "advice" is enclosed in pay en- 
 velopes. 
 
 The incident of a Mormon apostle influencing the 
 Mormon voters in early Iowa is a good example of an 
 attempt to exert religious influence in politics. 121 
 
 In Iowa instances of the intimidation of railroad em- 
 ployees are, perhaps, more numerous than those of any 
 other class of workers. This is perhaps due to the fact 
 that the railroads are the largest and most completely 
 organized interest in the State. Conversations with rail- 
 road employees usually bring out the fact that the author- 
 ities have been in the habit of "advising" their employees 
 as to whom they should vote for, in spite of legislation 
 forbidding such activity. Legislation against undue in- 
 fluence, therefore, has for its object the elimination of 
 such conditions, for the purpose of leaving the voter free 
 to express at the polls his unbiased opinion on political 
 affairs.
 
 56 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 According to the Michigan Territorial legislation of 
 1820 a person convicted of using threats or "other cor- 
 rupt means or device whatsoever", direct or indirect, in 
 attempting to influence an elector in voting or refraining 
 from voting might be fined not to exceed $1,000. 122 Again, 
 an act of 1827 provided that any person who by menace, 
 directly or indirectly, attempted to keep an elector from 
 casting his ballot might be fined not more than $200 for 
 each offense; while deceiving an elector regarding the 
 contents of his ballots was made punishable by a fine not 
 exceeding $100. 123 
 
 The Iowa corrupt practices legislation of 1849 pro- 
 vided that any person who used any threat to get a voter 
 to cast his ballot contrary to his wishes, or to deter him 
 from voting, purposely deceived an illiterate voter re- 
 garding the contents of his ballot, or changed an elec- 
 tor 's ballot so that he voted contrary to his wishes, might 
 be fined from $100 to $1,000 and be imprisoned in the 
 county jail from one to six months. 124 These provisions, 
 however, were repealed by the Code of 1851, which de- 
 fines as undue influence procuring or endeavoring to 
 procure the vote of any elector, or the influence of any 
 person over other electors at any election for himself, or 
 for or against any candidate, by means of violence, 
 threats of violence, or threats of withdrawing custom or 
 dealing in business or trade, or enforcing the payment of 
 debts, or bringing any civil or criminal action, or any 
 other threat of injury to be inflicted by him or by his 
 means. Violation of this section of the Code was punish- 
 able by a fine of not more than $500 or a jail sentence not 
 to exceed one year. The Code of 1851 further provides 
 that preventing or attempting to prevent a voter from 
 casting his ballot by force or threat of force may be pun-
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 57 
 
 islied by a fine of not more than $200 and a jail sentence 
 of not to exceed six months. Deceiving an illiterate voter 
 concerning the contents of his ballot or changing it so the 
 voter's ballot is cast contrary to his wishes was penalized 
 by a fine of from $100 to $1,000 and a jail sentence of not 
 exceeding two years. 125 
 
 While Iowa has been comparatively free from the 
 violence which has too often characterized elections in 
 some of the large cities of the country, elections in this 
 State have not at all places and at all times been peaceful 
 gatherings of electors to express their political opinions, 
 free from outside pressure. Even at present one some- 
 times reads of disturbances in connection with elections 
 held in Iowa. Concerning the Des Moines primary elec- 
 tion to select candidates for the final election of municipal 
 officers in the spring of 1912 the Register and Leader says 
 that "voters had objection to the loafers and tough ele- 
 ment which hung around the polling places last Monday. 
 Several persons who called at the city hall stated that 
 they had turned away without voting last Monday owing 
 to the gang of hangers-on around the polls." 120 
 
 It was to prevent this form of intimidation that an act 
 was passed in 1886 containing a provision which made it 
 illegal at a municipal election to loaf within one hundred 
 feet of the polls, hinder or delay a voter in going to or 
 from the polling place, or solicit or attempt in any way 
 to influence a voter in casting his ballot. The penalty for 
 the violation of this statute was a fine of from $50 to $200 
 or a jail sentence of from twenty days to six months, or 
 both. It was made the duty of the election judges to 
 prevent, as far as possible, the violation of these pro- 
 visions by posting notices within one hundred feet of the 
 polls in conspicuous places "and in other ways", and to 
 cause the arrest of offenders. 127
 
 58 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 A general election law passed in 1892, applying to all 
 except school elections, restated the above as election of- 
 fenses, though in some cases with slight changes or omis- 
 sions, and added some other acts of a similar nature. 
 The provisions of the statute in some respects are not 
 very clear and seem somewhat conflicting. Electioneer- 
 ing or the soliciting of votes within one hundred feet of 
 the polls, interrupting, hindering, or opposing a voter 
 while approaching the polls, might be punished by a fine 
 of from $25 to $100, or a jail sentence of from ten to 
 thirty days for each offense, or both. Moreover, any one 
 interfering or attempting to interfere with a voter when 
 inside the polling place or when marking his ballot, or 
 trying to get the voter to show how he intended to mark 
 or had marked his ballot, might be fined from $5 to $100 
 or imprisoned for a term of from ten to thirty days, or 
 both. It was made the duty of the election judges to 
 enforce these provisions. The act finally adds the gen- 
 eral provision that willfully hindering the voting of 
 others may be punished by a fine of from $10 to $100 or 
 a jail sentence of from ten to thirty days, or both. 128 
 
 The provisions of the present law as found in the 
 Code of 1897 covering this form of intimidation of voters 
 include the provisions of the Code of 1851, except that 
 the provision against deceiving an illiterate voter as to 
 the contents of his ballot is directed only against election 
 officials, and the provisions of the general election law of 
 1892, except for the omission of the general prohibition 
 of the hindering of voters. It stipulates that the viola- 
 tion of the provisions taken from the general election law 
 of 1892 may be punished by a fine of from $5 to $100 or 
 a jail sentence of from ten to thirty days, or both. The 
 provision which made it obligatory for the election judges
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 59 
 
 to enforce the law on this point is also omitted. More- 
 over, the Code of 1897 forbids loitering or congregating 
 at or within one hundred feet of the polling place, but 
 provides no penalty for the enforcement of this clause. 129 
 However, the Code of 1897 provides that "when the per- 
 formance of any act is prohibited by any statute and no- 
 penalty for the violation of such act is imposed, the doing 
 of such act is a misdemeanor" (Code of 1897, p. 1934). 
 
 The object of employing personal workers at elections 
 is two-fold. In the first place the personal worker is 
 supposed to be able to swing from five to fifteen votes, 
 for the candidate or party for which he is working. 130 
 Again, the employment of personal workers may be used 
 indirectly as a cloak for buying the worker's vote. Iowa 
 legislation directed against the employment of such paid 
 personal workers dates from the year 1894, when an act 
 was passed by the General Assembly making the hiring 
 of workers on election day a misdemeanor and provides 
 that both the giver and receiver of money or other thing 
 of value for this purpose may be fined from $50 to $300, 
 or sentenced to jail for a term not to exceed ninety days. 
 The act makes an exception, however, in the case of con- 
 tracts made by individuals or political committees for the 
 conveyance of voters to and from the polling place for 
 reasonable pay. 131 Earlier legislation, however, permits 
 each political party to employ three poll watchers. 132 
 
 A primary election law of 1904 prohibited the em- 
 ployment of paid personal workers in a primary. This 
 law provided as punishment, for any person who agreed 
 to "perform any service in the interest of any candidate" 
 for money or other valuable thing or accepted pay for 
 work performed, a fine of not more than $300 or a jail 
 sentence not to exceed thirty days. The law exempted
 
 '60 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 contracts for the conveyance of voters to and from the 
 polls 133 — a provision that was repealed by the primary 
 law of 1907. According to the 1907 act the giving, offer- 
 ing, or receiving of money or other valuable thing for 
 political work in a primary is penalized by a fine of not 
 more than $300 or imprisonment not to exceed ninety 
 days; but the act permits contracts for political adver- 
 tisements and for securing signatures to nominating 
 petitions at a reasonable remuneration. 134 The act 
 passed during the same session providing for the com- 
 mission plan of government makes it illegal for any 
 person to agree to perform any services for a candidate 
 for a municipal office. Violation of this provision is pun- 
 ished by a fine not to exceed $300 or a jail sentence of not 
 more than thirty days. 135 
 
 The Spoils System is based partly on a theory of the 
 political activity of the officeholder as a return for his 
 appointment; and so, corrupt practices acts have con- 
 tained provisions for the elimination of such activities. 
 The importance of legislation directed against the polit- 
 ical influence of officeholders is admirably brought out by 
 President Cleveland in his instructions to cabinet mem- 
 bers which read as follows : 
 
 Officeholders are the agents of the people, not their masters. 
 Not only is their time and labor due to the Government, but they 
 should scrupulously avoid, in their political action, as well as in 
 the discharge of their official duty, offending, by display of ob- 
 structive partisanship, their neighbors who have relations with 
 them as public officials. 
 
 They should also constantly remember that their party 
 friends, from whom they have received preferment, have not 
 invested them with the power of arbitrarily managing their po- 
 litical affairs. They have no right as officeholders to dictate the
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 61 
 
 political action of their party associates or to throttle freedom 
 of action within party lines by methods and practices which per- 
 vert every useful and justifiable purpose of party organiza- 
 tion. 130 
 
 To prevent political activity on the part of public of- 
 ficials and employees the act creating the Board of 
 Control of State Institutions prohibits the use of political 
 influence by members of the Board or any officer or em- 
 ployee of any institution under the control of the Board. 
 Any such person who by soliciting or otherwise uses his 
 position directly or indirectly to influence the political 
 views of other officers or employees connected with such 
 institutions may be removed from office by the proper 
 authority. 137 With the same object in view the act pro- 
 viding for commission government in Iowa makes it a 
 misdemeanor for any officer or employee of the city to 
 solicit or otherwise exert his influence, directly or in- 
 directly, to affect the political views of other officials or 
 employees or to secure their votes for a particular person 
 or candidate. Violation of this act may be punished by a 
 fine of not to exceed $300 or a jail sentence of not to ex- 
 ceed thirty days. 138 
 
 Perhaps the most demoralizing phase of corrupt prac- 
 tices in Iowa elections has been the control or attempted 
 control on the part of employers of the votes of their 
 employees. Employers have, at least in the past, realized 
 more fully than employees the value of a vote in a system 
 of government like ours. Some employers seem to act on 
 the assumption that the giving of employment carries 
 with it the right to control the employee's vote. That 
 employers are in a position to use such influence with 
 employees, and have often done so, few will question.
 
 »62 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 The activity of the railroads in this respect has been 
 especially notorious in Iowa. For example, in 1910 the 
 railroads used influence with their employees to defeat 
 a certain candidate for the office of railroad commission- 
 er. And at the same election the saloon interests were 
 accused of opposing in the same way the election of the 
 Eepublican candidate for Attorney General. 139 
 
 In an attempt, therefore, to remove influences affect- 
 ing employees in exercising their right of franchise, the 
 Iowa legislature included in the general election law of 
 1892 certain restrictions on employers. 140 To prevent 
 employers from intimidating their employees by granting 
 those who vote "right" time to vote, while refusing those 
 suspected of voting "wrong" the necessary time for 
 voting, this statute compels employers to give their em- 
 ployees two hours' time for voting without penalty of 
 any kind. The law, however, requires employees prior 
 to election day to notify their employer, who may then 
 fix the time. An employer who refuses to grant his 
 employees time to vote, penalizes them for taking time off 
 for voting, attempts to influence or control the voter in 
 casting his ballot by offering a reward, threatens to dis- 
 charge the employee, or in any other way tries to intim- 
 idate the employee, or directly or indirectly violates the 
 provisions of the act in any manner may be fined from 
 $5 to $100. 141 It seems to be true, however, that the pen- 
 alty provided has not noticeably deterred the more 
 powerful employers from attempting to influence their 
 employees at elections. 
 
 TREATING 
 
 As a rule the purpose of treating is not to buy the 
 votes of members of opposing parties, but rather to
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 63 
 
 "enthuse" and confirm the members of one's own party. 
 In a primary campaign, however, the appeal being pri- 
 marily to the party members by candidates for the party 
 nomination, there is little difference between treating and 
 bribery, except in the name. To give the voters the im- 
 pression that he is a "good fellow" the candidate hands 
 out his notorious campaign cigars or treats the pros- 
 pective voter to drinks — at least these are the usual 
 forms of treating in an Iowa campaign. The effective- 
 ness of this sort of an argument with a certain class of 
 voters can hardly be questioned. 
 
 As early as 1827 the Michigan Legislative Council 
 provided that any person who directly or indirectly gave 
 or promised any meat, drink, or "other reward" with the 
 intent of securing his own election or that of a favorite 
 candidate might be fined a sum not to exceed $500 for 
 every offense. 142 It was not, however, till 1880 that Iowa 
 legislated directly against treating. Treating by means 
 of liquor and cigars has been, and in some communities 
 still is, one of the most corrupting influences in connec- 
 tion with elections. Too often candidates have been 
 elected to office for no other reason than that they are 
 "good spenders" in the campaign. The Iowa statute of 
 1880 made it a misdemeanor to give or offer intoxicating 
 liquor, including ale, wine, or beer, to a voter at or within 
 one mile of the polls on election day before the time of 
 closing the polls. On conviction the offender was liable 
 to a fine of from $5 to $100, or a jail sentence of not to ex- 
 ceed thirty days, or both. 143 Moreover, the act of 1907 
 providing for the publicity of campaign funds contains a 
 section making it the duty of election officials at munic- 
 ipal, primary, and general elections to prohibit the 
 placing of, keeping, or giving to voters, cigars, food, or
 
 64 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 other refreshments or treats in or about the polling place. 
 Violation is punishable by a fine of from $50 to $300, or 
 imprisonment of from thirty days to six months. 144 
 
 ILLEGAL VOTING 
 
 Illegal voting means the casting of a ballot by a per- 
 son who for some reason or another is not by law entitled 
 to the privilege. This is an offense not easily reached by 
 legislation, since intent is usually held to be the important 
 consideration by the courts when passing on such cases. 
 "Repeating" and "colonizing" are the principal forms 
 of illegal voting. 
 
 The general election law enacted by the Legislative 
 Assembly in 1839 contained a section making illegal vot- 
 ing punishable by a fine of from $25 to $50. Moreover, if 
 the election judges considered the person casting the 
 ballot a legal voter he could not later be accused of il- 
 legal voting. Repeating was punishable by a fine of 
 $100. 145 By the legislation of 1849 the following acts 
 were declared illegal: (1) repeating; (2) voting by a 
 person who knew he did not possess the required quali- 
 fications; (3) advising, assisting, or inducing another to 
 vote twice at the same election, or to vote when he knew 
 such person not to be a qualified voter. Violation of 
 these provisions was punishable by a fine of from $100 to 
 $1,000, or a jail sentence of from one to six months. 140 
 
 The provisions of the Code of 1851, which still con- 
 stitute the law regarding offenses of this character, 
 changed the penalty (1) for counselling a person to vote, 
 when knowing such person to be unqualified, to a fine of 
 from $50 to $500 and a jail sentence of not to exceed one 
 year, (2) for repeating, a fine not to exceed $200 or a jail 
 sentence of not more than one year, and (3) for voting
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 65 
 
 when knowing oneself to be unqualified, a similar fine of 
 $200 or imprisonment for a term not to exceed six 
 months. 147 Under the latter provision it has been held 
 that the State may prove disability without stating in the 
 indictment what the disability is. The essential point is 
 that the person voting knows himself to be disqualified. 148 
 
 The Code of 1851 provided further that voting in a 
 county of which one is not a resident may be punished by 
 a fine not to exceed $200, or a jail sentence of not more 
 than one year. It stated that a person who votes, being 
 disqualified by reason of non-residence, nonage, not being 
 a United States citizen, or on account of some other dis- 
 ability, may be fined not more than $300, or imprisoned 
 in the county jail for a term of not more than one year. 
 
 It is no defense on the part of a person accused of 
 illegal voting to show that he voted on the advice of other 
 voters who were not learned in the law. 149 The court 
 argued that if such a rule were permitted the purity of 
 the ballot could not be maintained, since evasion of the 
 law would be possible for any one. It is the duty of 
 citizens who are ignorant of the qualifications of voters 
 to inform themselves by looking up the law or seeking 
 the advice of persons qualified to give the needed infor- 
 mation. Voting outside of the township of which one is 
 a resident is also an offense against this section; 150 for 
 residence is not merely a question of fact but intent as 
 well. Living in a township the required time would not 
 make one a resident if such person were there merely for 
 temporary purposes and did not intend to make that 
 place his home. Voting outside of the precinct in which 
 a person has his residence may not necessarily be suf- 
 ficient evidence to convict him of illegal voting; for, if 
 the person so voting believes himself to be a legal voter
 
 66 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 of another precinct and has consulted legal advisers, he is 
 not considered guilty of illegal voting. 151 
 
 The Code further provides that a judge who illegally 
 permits a person, challenged by an elector as being un- 
 qualified, to vote without requiring proof, or refuses the 
 ballot to one complying with the requirements of the law, 
 may be fined from $20 to $200 or sentenced to jail not to 
 exceed six months. 
 
 The Supreme Court has held that to render an election 
 officer liable for refusing the ballot of a voter it must 
 appear not only that the voter was qualified to vote, but 
 also that the ballot was offered to the officer who refused 
 to receive it during the time when it was the duty of the 
 officer to receive votes (State vs. Clark, 102 Iowa 685). 
 
 The origin of State regulation of primary elections in 
 Iowa may be traced to the legislation of 1898. In order 
 to exclude from the party primary persons who are not 
 members of the party a law was enacted which provides 
 that at any party primary to nominate candidates or to 
 choose delegates to party convention, it is illegal for a 
 person who is not at the time of the primary a bona fide 
 member of the party to participate. Nor may persons 
 who are not qualified voters take part in such primary. 
 To violate this section, or to knowingly procure, aid, or 
 abet such violation, is made a misdemeanor. The penalty 
 in either case is a fine not to exceed $100 or a jail sentence 
 of not more than thirty days. Moreover, it is considered 
 prima facie evidence of violation of the act for any person 
 who has taken part in one party primary to vote in the 
 primary of another party at the same election. The 
 election judges are given the power to administer oaths 
 and to examine any person offering to vote regarding his 
 right to take part in the primary: it is made their duty
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 67 
 
 to do so if a challenged person desires to vote. Persons 
 testifying falsely regarding any material matter affect- 
 ing Ms right to vote are held guilty of perjury. 152 
 
 The primary election law of 1904, which made the 
 holding of party primaries obligatory in counties having 
 a population of 75,000 or more, declares as illegal, will- 
 fully voting or offering to vote without the residence 
 qualifications, the age qualification, United States citizen- 
 ship, or knowing oneself not to be a qualified voter of the 
 precinct where one attempts to vote. Voting under these 
 circumstances constitutes a misdemeanor punishable by 
 a fine of from $100 to $500 and imprisonment for from ten 
 to ninety days. Knowingly procuring, aiding, or abet- 
 ting the violation of these provisions are penalized in the 
 same manner. 153 
 
 The act of 1907 providing for State-wide primaries 
 has the same provisions regarding illegal voting, but the 
 penalty for violation is changed to a jail sentence of from 
 thirty days to six months or a fine of from $100 to $500. 154 
 The act providing for the adoption of commission gov- 
 ernment in certain municipalities contains the same def- 
 inition of illegal voting, but provides as penalty a jail 
 sentence of from ten to ninety days with a fine of the 
 same amount as provided in the primary act of 1907. 155 
 
 BETTING ON ELECTION EESULTS 
 
 The purpose of betting, so far as it concerns the sub- 
 ject of corrupt practices, is to indicate to the party 
 members a confidence in the outcome of the election, to 
 bring the wavering voters who desire to be on the win- 
 ning side to the support of their ticket, and to discourage 
 the members of the opposing party. Betting is also re- 
 sorted to as a means of concealing bribery.
 
 68 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 The Iowa law provides that ' ' any person who records 
 or registers bets or wagers or sells pools .... npon 
 the result of any political nomination or election .... 
 shall be fined not exceeding one thousand dollars, or im- 
 prisoned in the county jail not exceeding one year, or 
 both." 15 ' 5 According to an interpretation of this section, 
 issuing from the office of the Attorney General, "the 
 making of any bet or wager on the result of any election 
 or on the success or failure of any candidate for any 
 office, is a crime under our laws." 157 The Marshalltown 
 Times-Republican in commenting upon this interpreta- 
 tion declares that "a year in the county jail for wagering 
 a cigar on whether John Doe would beat Richard Roe for 
 township constable, would be paying dearly for the 
 smoke, but such penalty could be paid under the Iowa 
 law", according to the ruling from the Attorney Gen- 
 eral's office. 15S 
 
 RESTRICTIONS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS 
 
 In a political campaign money is needed for a number 
 of purposes. Of these, perhaps the principal legal ex- 
 penditures are for the maintenance of the party head- 
 quarters; hiring of halls; paying of speakers and po- 
 litical "workers" of various kinds ; conveyance of voters ; 
 making up and distributing political literature; adver- 
 tising through newspapers, bulletin boards, motion pic- 
 ture shows, and the like; distributing banners, buttons, 
 flags, and campaign emblems; and incidentals such as 
 postage, messenger fees, telephone, and telegrams. 
 Moreover, services rendered during the campaign are 
 usually paid for at an exorbitant rate. In the past a 
 large share of the money collected has been appropriated 
 by the agents handling the funds. Illegal purposes, such
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 69 
 
 as the purchase of votes and treating, greatly increase 
 the sum used in conducting a campaign. 
 
 It was Henry Watterson who said that in a campaign 
 money counts more than principles. Harriman estimated 
 that the fund of $240,000 raised by him for the 1904 New 
 York campaign turned 50,000 voters in New York City 
 alone and made a difference of 100,000 in the general 
 result. Money being so essential, parties are obliged to 
 solicit large funds. Moreover, a large campaign con- 
 tribution seems to imply that the party receiving it is 
 placed in a position of debtor to the contributor and is 
 expected to return the favor if it gets into power. 
 
 It is a well known fact that business affected by some 
 form of State regulation or desiring special favors from 
 the government endeavors to call to its aid the influence 
 of parties through campaign contributions. This idea 
 was well expressed by Jay Gould when, in describing the 
 political activity of the Erie Railroad, he said that in a 
 Republican district his corporation contributed to the 
 Republican campaign fund and in a Democratic district 
 to the Democratic campaign fund, while in a close district 
 contributions were made to the funds of both parties — 
 always for the Erie Railroad. A primary motive then in 
 prohibiting campaign contributions from certain sources 
 is to eliminate selfish interests that contribute to party 
 funds as a matter of business in order to be in a position 
 to secure legislation in their favor or to ward off legis- 
 lation or the enforcement of laws which might be in- 
 jurious to their enterprises. 
 
 To eliminate this influence in Iowa politics legislation 
 was enacted in 1907 which makes it "unlawful for any 
 corporation doing business within the State, or any of- 
 ficer, agent or representative thereof acting for such
 
 70 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 corporation, to give or contribute any money, property, 
 labor or thing of value, directly or indirectly, to any 
 member of any political committee, political party, or 
 employe or representative thereof, or to any candidate 
 for any public office or candidate for nomination to any 
 public office or to the representative of such candidate, 
 for campaign expenses or for any political purpose what- 
 soever, or to any person, partnership or corporation for 
 the purpose of influencing or causing such person, part- 
 nership or corporation to influence any elector of the 
 state to vote for or against any candidate for public office 
 or for nomination for public office or to any public officer 
 for the purpose of influencing his official action". This 
 act is not to be interpreted, however, so as to check in 
 any way the freedom of the press in discussing candi- 
 dates, nominations, public officers, or political questions. 
 
 The act of 1907 also makes it illegal for a member of 
 a political committee, political party, or an employee or 
 representative of a political party or committee, or a 
 candidate or his agent to solicit, request, or knowingly 
 receive from a corporation or its representative or of- 
 ficers any money, property, or thing of value for any 
 political purpose. Testifying in a case arising under the 
 law is compulsory, but immunity is granted the person 
 testifying except in the commission of perjury in con- 
 nection with the giving of his testimony. Conviction of 
 a violation of the act carries with it imprisonment of 
 from six months to one year and, in the discretion of the 
 court, a fine of not more than $1,000. 15t) 
 
 Iowa legislation restricting campaign contributions is 
 not confined to prohibitions on corporation contributions. 
 A beginning has been made in the direction of restricting 
 party assessments of public officers and employees. As-
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 71 
 
 sessments are levied on officeholders on the theory that 
 they owe their position to the party rather than to the 
 people, and that they ought to contribute to the support 
 of the patriots who helped put them into their positions 
 but who themselves belong to the unofficial side of the 
 party. The party assessment differs little from a prop- 
 erty qualification for officeholding, is an incentive to 
 dishonesty, and tends to keep good men out of the public 
 service. To be sure, the payment of such assessments 
 is not compulsory, but the officeholder or employee knows 
 very well that a refusal to pay is likely to be punished by 
 dismissal or some other mark of disfavor. 
 
 To prevent the assessment of officials or employees 
 connected with State institutions controlled by the Board 
 of Control, the act creating the Board provides that any 
 member or officer of the Board of Control, or any officer 
 or employee of any institution subject to the Board, who 
 in any manner contributes money or other thing of value 
 to any person for election purposes may be removed by 
 the proper authorities. 10 " A later law provides that any 
 officer or employee of a commission governed city who in 
 any manner contributes money, labor, or other valuable 
 thing to any person for election purposes is considered 
 as having committed a misdemeanor and may be fined not 
 to exceed $300 or imprisoned in the county jail for not 
 more than thirty days. 161 An amendment to this act de- 
 clares it to be a misdemeanor for a member of the fire or 
 police department in such cities to make any direct or 
 indirect contributions of money or other valuable thing 
 to a candidate for nomination or election or to a cam- 
 paign or political committee. Violation of the statute is 
 punishable by a fine of from $25 to $100 or imprisonment 
 for not to exceed thirty days. 102
 
 72 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 PUBLICITY OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS 
 
 It is not so much the campaign contribution itself that 
 has fallen into disrepute as the secrecy involving - such 
 contributions and the belief that large contributions from 
 corporations have been repaid corruptly by the granting 
 of special favors through the government. Publicity of 
 campaign contributions and expenditures has been advo- 
 cated in recent years as a cure for political corruption. 
 This idea is based on the theory that corrupt bargains 
 will not be entered into where publicity is required, or if 
 entered into such bargains can not be kept in the face of 
 a dissenting public opinion. No party or candidate would 
 dare to show an expenditure for the illegal influence of 
 voters ; nor will an individual or corporation that expects 
 a return for the contribution care to contribute if un- 
 certain of the party's power to fulfil the understanding. 
 
 It was in view of these considerations that the Iowa 
 legislature in 1907 passed an act requiring the publicity 
 of campaign contributions and expenditures. 103 The act 
 applies to all elections except school elections. Within 
 sixty days after a primary or an election the candidate is 
 required to file a sworn itemized statement of contribu- 
 tions and expenditures accounting for all money or other 
 things of value expended or promised directly or indirect- 
 ly by him and, to the best of his knowledge, by others in 
 his behalf to aid or secure his nomination or election. 
 If he is a candidate for a municipal or county office the 
 statement must be filed with the county auditor. If he is 
 a candidate for an office voted on in more than one county, 
 the statement should be filed with the Secretary of State. 
 Blanks for this purpose are furnished by the State. The 
 statement must show when the contribution was received,
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 73 
 
 the amount thereof, and the source. It must also indicate 
 the date, purpose, amount, and to whom payments are 
 made. The statements must also include the assessments 
 of any persons, committees, or organizations in charge of 
 the candidate's campaign. 
 
 Statements are also required from the committee 
 •chairman of the State, district, or county, filed at the 
 same time and place, giving similar information and 
 stating in addition the amounts or balances remaining on 
 hand. The person filing the statement is required to 
 make a sworn statement as to the accuracy and truth of 
 the statement. These statements are open to public in- 
 spection at all times, and they remain on file as a part of 
 the permanent records in the office where filed. In cases 
 arising under this law witnesses may not be excused on 
 the ground that they may incriminate themselves or as a 
 result of their testimony become exposed to public ig- 
 nominy, but they are immune from prosecution for any- 
 thing brought out in the trial. Failing to comply with the 
 law is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of from $50 to 
 $300, or a jail sentence of from thirty days to six months.
 
 Ill 
 
 A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CORRUPT 
 PRACTICES LEGISLATION 
 
 When in recent years the American commonwealths 
 came to realize the need of more stringent corrupt prac- 
 tices legislation, the reformers instinctively turned to the 
 statutes of Great Britain for guidance. In England, as a 
 result of popular agitation against corruption connected 
 with the elections as well as a feeling on the part of the 
 political organizations that the financing of elections was 
 becoming too burdensome, the Parliament passed a com- 
 prehensive corrupt practices act as early as 1883. More- 
 over, this act, supplemented by the legislation of 1895, is 
 so complete and apparently so satisfactory that it still 
 serves as a model for American legislation directed 
 against corrupt practices. 
 
 Unlike the American laws — except in Oregon — the 
 English corrupt practices acts differentiate between 
 " corrupt practices" and "illegal practices". Corrupt 
 practices according to the English statutes are bribery,, 
 treating, undue influence, personation, and knowingly 
 making false declarations with regard to the returns of 
 election expenses. They are, in fact, such acts as no man 
 of ordinary intelligence could commit without being fully 
 conscious that he is doing wrong. Illegal practices, on 
 the other hand, are the minor offenses, such as providing 
 bands and banners, hiring carriages for the conveyance 
 of voters to the polls, and exceeding the legal maximum 
 
 74
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 75- 
 
 of election expenses. In other words, illegal practices are 
 such acts as a person might commit without realizing 
 that he is doing wrong or breaking a law. 164 
 
 BRIBERY 
 
 The English legal definition of bribery, which was 
 given in the Corrupt Practices Act of 1854 and left intact 
 by the legislation of 1883, is made extremely broad on 
 account of the very elusive character of the offense, and 
 perhaps also on account of the tendency of the courts to 
 interpret legislation of this sort rather strictly. Ac- 
 cording to this definition a person is guilty of bribery 
 who "directly or indirectly gives, lends, procures, agrees 
 to give, agrees to lend, agrees to procure, offers, prom- 
 ises, promises to procure, promises to endeavor to pro- 
 cure any money or valuable consideration, any office, 
 place, or employment to or for any voter, to or for any 
 person on behalf of any voter, to or for any other person 
 to induce any voter to vote or refrain from voting, or to 
 induce such voter to vote or refrain from voting, or to 
 induce such person to procure or endeavor to procure the 
 return of any person, or vote of any person." A person 
 who for himself or for another "receives or agrees or 
 contracts to receive, the gifts, loans, offers, promises, 
 procurements or agreements, either before, during, or 
 after an election; any person who provides money with 
 intent that it, or any part of it, shall be expended in bri- 
 bery; and any person who pays money in discharge or 
 repayment of money so expended" is also, according to 
 the English statute, guilty of bribery. 165 
 
 Some States have attempted to frame definitions of 
 bribery as comprehensive as those found in English law; 
 and it appears that some of these American definitions
 
 76 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 include provisions not found in the English act. Thus, 
 the Delaware law declares the offering on the part of a 
 candidate to serve for nothing or for less than the lawful 
 salary to be bribery. 160 Moreover, the Indiana provision 
 seems to define the employment of paid political workers 
 on primary or election day as a means of bribery. 167 
 Oklahoma legislation includes as bribery the giving, 
 promising, or loaning of money to be used for election 
 bets, for betting with an elector that he will vote for a 
 certain named candidate or ticket, and the gift or promise 
 of money gained in this way. 168 The Montana bribery 
 provision includes the paying of a person's naturaliza- 
 tion fees; 109 while the Washington act provides that 
 offering, promising, or giving of victuals or drink shall be 
 considered bribery. 170 Illinois classifies the soliciting or 
 receiving of liquor for voting as "the infamous crime of 
 bribing". 171 
 
 TREATING 
 
 The Minnesota Corrupt Practices Act, passed at the 
 1912 special session of the legislature, contains a section 
 directed against treating similar to the Oregon provision, 
 which is itself an elaboration of the English definition. 
 According to the Minnesota legislation "no person or 
 candidate shall, either by himself or by any other person, 
 while such person or candidate is seeking a nomination 
 or election, directly or indirectly, give or provide, or pay, 
 wholly or in part, the expenses of giving or providing any 
 meat or drink or other entertainment or provision, 
 clothing, liquors, cigars or tobacco, to or for any person 
 for the purpose of or with the intent or hope to influence 
 that person or any other person to give or refrain from 
 giving his vote at such primary or election to or for any
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 77 
 
 candidate or political party ticket, or measure before the 
 people or on account of such person or other person 
 having voted or refrained from voting for any candidate 
 or the candidates of any political party or organization 
 or measure before the people, or being about to vote, or 
 refrain from voting, at such election. No elector shall 
 accept or take any such meat, drink, entertainment, pro- 
 vision, clothing, liquor, cigars, or tobacco, and such ac- 
 ceptance shall be a ground of challenge to his vote and of 
 rejecting his vote on a contest." 172 
 
 The Missouri act contains similar provisions directed 
 against treating, but recognizes the theory that to be ef- 
 fective the treating in question must be recent ; and so it 
 is made an offense only when done within ten days of a 
 primary or sixty days of an election. 173 
 
 UNDUE INFLUENCE 
 
 The English legal definition of undue influence is 
 copied almost literally in some American jurisdictions. 
 But the Oregon provision is an amplification of the Eng- 
 lish definition, providing that "every person who shall 
 directly or indirectly, by himself or any other person in 
 his behalf, make use of or threaten to make use of any 
 force, coercion, violence, restraint, or undue influence, or 
 inflict or threaten to inflict, by himself or any other per- 
 son, any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm, or 
 loss upon or against any person in order to induce or 
 compel such person to vote or refrain from voting for any 
 candidate or the ticket of any political party, or any 
 measure before the people, or any person who, being a 
 minister, preacher, or priest, or any officer of any church, 
 religious or other corporation or organization, otherwise 
 than by public speech or print, shall urge, persuade or
 
 78 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 command any voter to vote or refrain from voting for or 
 against any candidate or political party ticket or measure 
 submitted to the people, for or on account of his re- 
 ligious duty, or the interest of any corporation, church 
 or other organization, or who shall by abduction, duress 
 or any fraudulent contrivance, impede or prevent the 
 free exercise of the franchise by any voter at any election, 
 or shall thereby compel, induce or prevail upon any elec- 
 tor to give or to refrain from giving his vote at any elec- 
 tion, shall be guilty of undue influence, and shall be 
 punished as for a corrupt practice." 174 
 
 INTIMIDATION 
 
 Most of the States have enacted legislation similar to 
 that of Iowa directed against intimidation of employees 
 by employers and interference with voters at the polls. 
 Oregon entirely prohibits electioneering on election day. 
 To protect candidates as well as to prevent the "nurs- 
 ing" of their constituency by candidates, the Oregon law 
 further provides that religious, charitable, or other sim- 
 ilar organizations may not demand or ask contributions 
 from a candidate, nor may the candidate make such pay- 
 ment if asked. Neither may tickets for entertainments or 
 balls or "advertising" space in any book, program, or 
 other publication be offered a candidate. It is considered 
 a corrupt practice for a candidate to make such payment 
 or contribution with the apparent hope or intent to in- 
 fluence the election results. The candidate's usual busi- 
 ness advertising or payments to organizations to which 
 he has been a regular contributor for more than six 
 months prior to his becoming a candidate, or ordinary 
 church contributions are exempted. 175 Minnesota also 
 .attempts to secure peaceful elections so that the voter
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 79 
 
 may be free to cast Ms ballot undisturbed by outside in- 
 fluences. Thus, the distribution of campaign literature 
 and providing, selling, or wearing political badges, but- 
 tons, or similar insignia, are prohibited on election clay. 170 
 
 PERSONATION 
 
 Personation is the form of illegal voting which is 
 clearly defined by English law. Personation is commit- 
 ted by a person who at an election "applies for a ballot 
 paper in the name of some other person, whether that 
 name be that of a person living or dead, or of a fictitious 
 person, or who, having voted once at any such election, 
 applies at the same election for a ballot paper in his own 
 name." 177 To prevent colonizing for the purpose of per- 
 sonating, New York legislation provides in detail for the 
 control of hotels, lodging houses, and rooming places. 178 
 The Indiana law prohibits the importing of voters from 
 the outside or from locality to locality within the State. 179 
 The Kentucky law prohibits the use of the naturalization 
 papers of one person, dead or living, by another per- 
 son. 180 The New Jersey act directed against colonizing 
 prohibits the providing wholly or in part for the expense 
 of boarding, lodging, or maintaining a person at any 
 place or domicile in any election precinct or ward or 
 district to secure his vote. lsl 
 
 BETTING 
 
 The Minnesota corrupt practices act contains, per- 
 haps, as broad a definition of betting on election results 
 as can be found in the statutes of any State. According 
 to this provision "any candidate who, before or during 
 any primary or election campaign, makes any bet or 
 wager of anything of pecuniary value, or in any manner
 
 80 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 becomes a party to any such bet or wager on the result of 
 the primary or election in his electoral district, in any 
 part thereof, or on any event or contingency relating to 
 any pending primary or election, or who provides money 
 or other valuable thing to be used by any person in bet- 
 ting or wagering upon the results of any impending 
 primary or election, shall be guilty of a violation of this 
 act. Any person, who for the purpose of influencing the 
 result of any primary or election, makes any bet or wager 
 of anything of pecuniary value on the result of such 
 primary or election, in his electoral district or any part 
 thereof, or of any pending primary or election, or on any 
 event or contingency relating thereto, shall be guilty of a 
 violation of this act, and in addition thereto, any such act 
 shall be a ground of challenge against his right to 
 vote. ' ' 182 The New Jersey provision states more directly 
 its purpose to protect the voter as well as to provide 
 punishment for betting as a matter of public policy. A 
 part of the section directed against betting reads as fol- 
 lows : ' ' Nor shall it be lawful for any person, directly or 
 indirectly, to make a bet or wager with a voter, depending 
 upon the result of any election, with the intent thereby to 
 procure the challenge of such voter, or to prevent him 
 from voting at such election." 183 The Kentucky law 
 strikes at the more subtle purpose of betting by prohibit- 
 ing the betting of any person with another that such 
 other person will vote for a named candidate. 184 
 
 EESTEICTIONS ON CAMPAIGN CONTEIBUTIONS AND 
 EXPENDITUEES 
 
 It is not, however, by elaborate definitions of the gross 
 forms of election offenses that the more advanced States 
 are attempting to eliminate corruption in the choice of
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 81 
 
 public officials; but rather, as before indicated, by cre- 
 ating conditions for the prevention of corruption, in- 
 timidation, or deception of voters. In this direction our 
 State laws also, in many instances, follow the lines of 
 English legislation. Indeed, the Peoples Power League 
 of Oregon advanced as an argument for the Huntly Bill 
 the fact that it was ' ' patterned after the very successful 
 British laws of 1883 and 1895. " 1S3 
 
 Restrictions of campaign contributions and expend- 
 itures are forms of this kind of legislation. The reasons 
 for prohibiting campaign funds coming from certain 
 sources have already been discussed (See above Ch. II). 
 A reason for restricting the total amount of money spent 
 in elections i& to prevent the raising of large funds to 
 debauch the electorate, for a large campaign fund is 
 almost sure to lead to political corruption. Restriction of 
 the amount which a candidate may contribute or expend 
 is to keep rich and poor candidates on terms of equality, 
 prevent a candidate from purchasing an office through 
 corrupt use of money, and do away with the temptation 
 an officer might have to reimburse himself, directly or 
 indirectly, from the public office for his extravagant ex- 
 penditure. Placing a money standard on candidates also 
 leads to the election of low grade men. 
 
 Restrictions as to the purposes for which money may 
 be expended is based on the theory that the use of money 
 in any way to influence even remotely the vote of the 
 elector through corruption, show, or deceit should be 
 prohibited. A reason for legislation requiring that all 
 funds collected and expended pass through the hands of 
 a treasurer or some other legally recognized official or 
 officials is to make it possible to hold some one respon- 
 sible and thus render the enforcement of laws of this 
 character more easy of accomplishment. 
 
 6
 
 82 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 A number of States have laws similar to that of Iowa 
 which prohibit corporate contributions to campaign 
 funds. The Oregon law prohibits political contributions 
 from all non-elective officeholders ; nor may any one 
 receive or solicit funds from such officers. The act 
 further prohibits the contribution or knowingly receiving 
 of funds in the name of any other than the person fur- 
 nishing the money. 180 According to Arizona legislation 
 the assessments of candidates must be voluntary and the 
 amount agreed upon at a meeting at which none but can- 
 didates are present. 187 Ohio requires every corporation 
 or public utility to file with the tax commission every 
 year an affidavit sworn to by an officer having knowledge 
 of the facts set forth as to whether the corporation or 
 public utility during the past year, directly or indirectly, 
 made any political contributions. 188 
 
 Several States require the appointment of a com- 
 mittee and treasurer to have charge of campaign con- 
 tributions and expenditures. Maryland requires all 
 committees to appoint a treasurer before they may collect 
 or expend campaign funds. Written notice must be given 
 the proper officials of such appointment, and all money 
 collected or expended must pass through the hands of the 
 treasurer. The treasurer is required to give a bond 
 approved of by the committee! The candidate may ap- 
 point a "Political Agent" to assist him in his candidacy. 
 The political agent and treasurer may act for more than 
 one candidate. 189 According to the New Jersey law a 
 candidate may appoint a committee of from one to five 
 members to "receive, expend, audit, and disburse" all 
 campaign funds. The candidate may declare himself the 
 person selected for such purpose or may designate the 
 regular party committee to act for him. The committee
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 83 
 
 may act conjointly for any number of candidates. One 
 of the committee, who is selected by the other members 
 as treasurer, receives and expends the political funds. 190 
 The Minnesota act permits a candidate for nomination to 
 select a "single personal campaign committee to consist 
 of one or more persons. ' ' The candidate may delegate to 
 this committee the expenditure of any part of the total 
 expenditure permitted him or in his behalf. 191 According 
 to "Wisconsin legislation "no person or group of persons, 
 other than the candidate or his personal campaign com- 
 mittee or a party committee, shall make any disburse- 
 ment for political purposes otherwise than through a 
 personal campaign committee or a party committee, ex- 
 cept that expenses incurred for rent of hall or other 
 rooms, for hiring speakers, for printing, for postage, for 
 telegraphing or telephoning, for advertising, for distrib- 
 uting printed matter, for clerical assistance and for hotel 
 and traveling expenses may be contributed and paid by a 
 person or group of persons residing within the county 
 where such expenses are incurred; and except that a 
 speaker may pay his actual traveling expenses in going 
 to and from meetings addressed by him." 192 
 
 The size of campaign funds is regulated in several 
 ways. In Minnesota a candidate for Governor may ex- 
 pend, $7,000; candidates for other State offices, $3,500; 
 for State Senator, $600 ; for member of the House of Rep- 
 resentatives, $400 ; for presidential elector-at-large, $500 ; 
 and for presidential elector for any congressional dis- 
 trict, $100. For other offices the amount is based on the 
 salary or fees, an expenditure of one-third of the first 
 year's salary being permitted. If there is no compensa- 
 tion attached to the office, or if it is one just created and 
 in cases not specifically provided for, the candidate is
 
 84 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 restricted to an expenditure of $100. In a general elec- 
 tion the State Central Committee may expend in addition 
 a sum not to exceed $10,000. 193 The New Jersey law is 
 similar to the Minnesota act regarding fixed expenditures 
 for candidates, except that it provides that the candidate 
 may spend not to exceed twenty-five per cent of a year 's 
 salary in the campaign for nomination and a similar 
 amount in the campaign for election. 1 " 4 
 
 West Virginia limits a candidate's expenditure ac- 
 cording to the number of votes cast for the office at the 
 last election. If there were 5000 votes or less cast the 
 candidate is limited to an expenditure of $250 ; for each 
 additional 100 votes over 5000 up to 25,000, $2.00 ; for each 
 additional 100 votes over 25,000 to 50,000, $1.00; for each 
 additional 100 votes over 50,000, 50 cents. 195 
 
 Wyoming legislation permits candidates to expend 
 twenty per cent of a year's salary for nomination and 
 twenty per cent for election expenses. But no candidate 
 is restricted to an expenditure of less than $100. More- 
 over, this does not include traveling expenses and pay- 
 ments for space in the State Campaign Book.^* 
 
 Oregon fixes a candidate's expenditure for the pri- 
 mary campaign at fifteen per cent of one year's salary 
 in addition to the fee for space in a State publicity 
 pamphlet. In the campaign for election he may expend 
 ten per cent of a year's salary. No candidate, however, 
 is restricted to less than $100. The act further provides 
 that "the contribution, expenditure or liability of a 
 descendant, ascendant, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, neph- 
 ew, niece, wife, partner, employer, employee or fellow 
 official or fellow employee of a corporation shall be 
 deemed to be that of the candidate himself." 197 
 
 The Nebraska act forbids a political committee to
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 85 
 
 receive more than $1,000 from any one person during the 
 same campaign. Nor may the treasurer or any other 
 person accept a single political contribution to exceed 
 $25 within two days of the election. 198 
 
 Various methods are provided to regulate the pur- 
 poses for which money may be expended in elections. 
 Some States prescribe minutely what payments are per- 
 mitted and prohibit all other payments ; others list illegal 
 expenditures; and still others include both legal and il- 
 legal expenditures. Again, some States restrict the use 
 of money for certain purposes on election day. 
 
 Maine permits a candidate at a caucus, primary or 
 general election, to expend money for postage, telegrams, 
 telephones, stationery, printing, express, and traveling. 
 The treasurer of the political committee or the political 
 agent of the candidate may expend money only for the 
 following expenses : 
 
 (a) Of hiring 1 public halls and music for conventions, public 
 meetings, and public primaries, and for advertising the same by 
 posters or otherwise; (b) of printing and circulating political 
 newspapers, pamphlets, and books; (c) of printing and distrib- 
 uting ballots and posters; (d) of renting rooms to be used by 
 political committees; (e) of compensating clerks and other per- 
 sons employed in committee rooms and at the polls; (f) of travel- 
 ing expenses of political agents, committees and public speakers ; 
 (g) of necessary postage, telegrams, telephones, printing, ex- 
 press, and conveyance charges. 199 
 
 Minnesota legislation limits the candidate's contribu- 
 tions or expenditures to secure nomination or election to 
 the following purposes : 
 
 (1) For the candidates' necessary personal traveling ex- 
 penses ; for postage, telegraph, telephone, or other public mes- 
 senger service.
 
 86 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 (2) For rent and necessary furnishing of hall or room dur- 
 ing such candidacy, for the delivery of speeches, relative to prin- 
 ciples or candidates. 
 
 (3) For payment of speakers and musicians at public meet- 
 ings, and their necessary traveling expenses. 
 
 (4) Printing and distribution of list of candidates, sample 
 ballots, pamphlets, newspapers, circulars, cards, hand bills, 
 posters and announcements relative to candidates, or public issue 
 or principles. 
 
 (5) For copying and classifying poll lists, for making can- 
 vasses of voters and for challengers at the polls. 
 
 (6) For filing fees to the proper public officer, and if nom- 
 inated at any primary for contributions to the party committee. 
 
 (7) For campaign advertising in newspapers, periodicals, 
 or magazines. 
 
 According to the same statute personal campaign or 
 party committees may expend campaign funds only for 
 the following purposes : 
 
 (1) For maintenance of headquarters and for hall rentals 
 incident to the holding of public meetings. 
 
 (2) For necessary stationery, postage, telegraph, telephone, 
 messenger and clerical assistance to be employed at a candidate's 
 headquarters or at the headquarters of the committee, incident 
 to the writing, addressing and mailing of letters and campaign 
 literature. 
 
 (3) For the necessary expenses, incident to the furnishing 
 and printing of badges, banners and other insignia, to the print- 
 ing and posting of hand bills, posters, lithographs and other 
 campaign literature, and the distribution thereof through the 
 mails or otherwise. 
 
 (4) For campaign advertising in newspapers, periodicals, 
 or magazines, as provided in this act. (i. e. as "Paid Adver- 
 tisements.") 
 
 (5) For wages, and actual necessary personal expenses of 
 public speakers, organizers and musicians.
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 8.7 
 
 (6) For traveling expenses of members of the committee. 
 
 (7) For preparing poll lists and for challengers at the polls. 
 
 The act also provides that no person may pay a voter 
 for "loss of time" for voting or registering. Nor may 
 any one pay personal workers at primaries or elections, 
 except poll watchers. No person may "buy, sell, give or 
 provide any political badges, buttons or other political 
 insignia to be worn at or about the polls on the day of any 
 primary or election, and no such political badge, button 
 or other insignia shall be worn at or about the polls on 
 any primary or election day." Conveyance of voters to 
 the polls is also prohibited. Nor may money be paid to 
 induce a person to become a candidate, withdraw as a 
 candidate, or refrain from becoming a candidate. 200 The 
 Massachusetts act permits a political committee to hire 
 ' ' not more than one conveyance to be used at each polling 
 place at elections only." 201 
 
 New Jersey prohibits the expenditures for the con- 
 veyance of voters to the polls and for the hiring of any 
 "watchers, agents or challengers for any work on elec- 
 tion day." Each party or organization may, however, 
 employ two challengers or agents in each polling place 
 who must wear badges furnished by the State showing 
 what candidate or party employs them. The act contains 
 elaborate provisions for conveyance to the polls, at State 
 expense, of voters living at a distance of at least two 
 miles or who are ' ' aged or infirm ' ' and have no means of 
 conveyance of their own nor live near a trolley line. 202 
 
 PUBLICITY OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES 
 
 The purpose of requiring publicity of campaign con- 
 tributions and expenditures has already been stated (See 
 above Ch. II, p. 72). There is some difference of opinion
 
 88 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 as to when the publicity statements of candidates, or 
 others handling political funds, ought to be filed or made 
 public. Publicity before election would tend to prevent 
 the collection or expenditure of large campaign funds on 
 account of the fear of the effect on voters. Publicity 
 after the election may have the same effect on the size of 
 the campaign fund, as large contributors for selfish pur- 
 poses would not care to contribute, fearing that an 
 aroused public opinion would make uncertain the carry- 
 ing out of ante-election promises or understandings. A 
 possible weakness is the dependence of such contributors 
 on the short memory of the public. Publicity both before 
 and after the primary or election would seem to be the 
 solution. One difficulty in making laws of this character 
 effective is that of securing complete detailed statements 
 as to who the contributors are and for what purpose the 
 money was expended. 203 
 
 In accordance with Minnesota legislation statements 
 of campaign contributions and expenditures must be filed 
 with the proper officer by candidates, secretaries of every 
 personal campaign committee, and secretaries of every 
 party committee on the second Saturday after a candi- 
 date or committee has made its first disbursement or 
 incurred any obligation, and every second Saturday of 
 each calendar month thereafter until all disbursements 
 have been accounted for; and all such persons are also 
 required on the Saturday preceding any election or pri- 
 mary, to "file a financial statement verified upon the oath 
 of such candidate or upon the oath of the secretary of 
 such committee" covering all transactions not included 
 in former statements. Each statement following the first 
 is to contain a summary of all preceding statements and 
 also a summary of all items given before. Statements
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 89 
 
 must also be filed by other political committees, within 
 thirty days after any primary or election. The state- 
 ments are to include in detail all contributions received 
 or promised, source, date, and the total amount; also all 
 disbursements or obligations, to whom, specific purpose 
 for which paid, date, and the total amount. Failure to 
 file statements keeps the candidate's name off the ticket. 
 If statements are not filed at the proper time, the officer 
 with whom they are supposed to be filed must notify the 
 candidate or committee of the failure. He is also re- 
 quired to notify the county attorney of the county where 
 the candidate resides or where the headquarters of the 
 negligent committee are located. The county attorney is 
 also required to notify the delinquent candidate or secre- 
 tary, and if no statement is filed within ten days the 
 county attorney is required to prosecute. 204 
 
 Oregon provides for the filing with the proper officer 
 of sworn itemized statements of campaign contributions, 
 expenditures, and liabilities within fifteen days after 
 nomination or election. Treasurers of political com- 
 mittees, political agents, as well as persons who receive 
 or expend more than $50, are likewise required to keep 
 similar accounts and file statements within ten days after 
 the election. "Every payment, except payments less in 
 the aggregate than five dollars to any person, shall be 
 vouched for by a receipted bill stating the particulars of 
 expense", which must also be filed with the statements. 
 "The books of account of every treasurer of any political 
 party, committee or organization, during an election cam- 
 paign, shall be open at all reasonable office hours to the 
 inspection of the treasurer and chairman of any opposing 
 political party or organization for the same electoral dis- 
 trict ; and his right of inspection may be enforced by writ 
 of mandamus by any court of competent jurisdiction."
 
 90 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 The Oregon act contains elaborate provisions for the 
 inspection of the filed statements within ten days after 
 filing by the officers with whom they are filed. If not 
 filed, or if the filed statement does not meet the require- 
 ments of the law, or upon the written complaint of candi- 
 date or voter on the same grounds, the officer is required 
 to notify the delinquent person. The complaint entered 
 by the candidate or voter must state in detail the reasons 
 for complaint, be sworn to, and filed with the officer 
 within sixty days after the filing of the statement or 
 amended statement. Failure to comply, on being notified, 
 means prosecution by the district attorney, if the evi- 
 dence seems to him sufficient to warrant it. The circuit 
 court of the county in which the statements are to be filed 
 may upon the application of the Attorney General, dis- 
 trict attorney, or the petition of a candidate or voter, 
 compel the filing of the proper statement. All statements 
 filed are to be left for six months as part of the public rec- 
 ords subject to public inspection, and certified copies may 
 be secured as of other public records. The totals of each 
 statement and the name of the person or candidate filing 
 the statement are published in the following annual re- 
 port of the officer with whom the statements are filed. 205 
 
 According to the English law the returning officer at 
 an election is required to publish a summary of the re- 
 turns of election expenses in not less than two news- 
 papers circulating in the county or borough where the 
 election was held, within ten days after receiving the 
 statement from the candidate's election agent. The re- 
 turning agent is also required to specify the time and 
 place where the complete statements may be inspected. 206 
 
 The New York act provides that vouchers need not be 
 filed for expenditures of less than $5, except when pay-
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 91 
 
 nients are to political workers, watchers, or messen- 
 gers. 207 The New Jersey law provides that a candidate- 
 seeking to avoid the responsibility of any payment made 
 by any person in his behalf, of which he has knowledge, 
 must set forth such payment and disclaim responsibility 
 for the same. The act further provides that all claims, 
 against the committee must be presented within four days 
 after a primary election and ten days after the general 
 election and paid within fifteen days after the completion 
 of the official canvass. Payments of claims may be made 
 after the time limit only after the court of the county 
 wherein the statement is filed is satisfied that there was. 
 no intentional misconduct, or that there was good reason 
 for the delay. 2 " 8 The Minnesota act prohibits any pay- 
 ment of claims unless presented within ten days after the 
 primary or election. 209 
 
 STATE AID IN CAMPAIGNS 
 
 State financing of political campaigns has been advo- 
 cated in recent years. It has been urged against this plan 
 that it is a good thing for a party to be obliged to appeal 
 to the public for financial support. State aid, it is held, 
 will tend to fossilize parties. State aid thus far has been 
 restricted to the publishing of publicity pamphlets, in 
 connection with which the candidates or parties are 
 charged a nominal sum for space taken. 210 
 
 The Oregon act provides for the publication of a 
 pamphlet by the Secretary of State for the information 
 of voters regarding candidates and parties. In this 
 pamphlet a candidate or his friends — unless the candi- 
 date notifies the Secretary of State to the contrary — 
 may secure space for urging his nomination. Not later 
 than thirty-three days before the primary the inforina-
 
 92 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 tion desired to be conveyed to the voters and signed by 
 the candidate, is filed with the Secretary. Persons op- 
 posing the candidate may also file signed statements 
 giving reasons why such person ought not to be nom- 
 inated. Such opposing statement must, however, first 
 have been served upon the candidate. The candidate is 
 given one page and his opponent one page at the same 
 rate. A person submitting a statement is subject to the 
 general laws regarding slander and libel. Candidates 
 must pay for at least one page at a rate varying from 
 $100 for a candidate for United States Senator to $10 for 
 State Senator or State Representative. A candidate may 
 secure up to three additional pages for which he must 
 pay at the rate of $100 per page. The candidates ' names 
 appear in the pamphlet in the same order as on the official 
 ballot. The county clerks are required to furnish the 
 Secretary of State with the names and addresses of the 
 registered voters; and at least eight days before the 
 primary the Secretary of State must mail the pamphlets 
 to the voters. The authority for all information must be 
 given. 
 
 A committee or organization may secure, at a rate of 
 $100 per page, four pages in which to advocate candidates 
 for the nomination for President or Vice President. Any 
 elector favoring or opposing such candidates may at a 
 similar rate secure up to four pages to favor or oppose 
 such candidates. Not later than thirty days before the 
 general election the State executive committee and man- 
 aging officers of any political party or organization, 
 liaving nominated candidates or independent candidates, 
 may file arguments for the success of the party and its 
 candidates or opposing a party or its candidates. Au- 
 thority must be given for all information filed. The
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 93 
 
 party is limited to twenty-four pages at a rate of $50 per 
 page and the independent candidate to two pages at the 
 same rate. Regular candidates may secure up to four 
 pages at a rate of $100 per page, but for candidates for 
 the presidency or vice presidency there are no charges. 
 These pamphlets must be circulated at least ten days be- 
 fore the election. 211 
 
 According to the Wisconsin laws statements relative 
 to amendments to the Constitution and measures filed by 
 the State central committee or by some one authorized 
 by it to be submitted to popular vote may also be included 
 in the publicity pamphlet without charges. The candi- 
 date may permit his party to use space allotted to him. 
 The charges for space in the pamphlet distributed before 
 the primary or election varies with the office from $300 
 for the first page with $150 for a second page for a candi- 
 date for the United States Senate to $20 for a single page 
 allowed a candidate for a member of the State assembly. 
 The party is charged at the rate of $300 a page. 212 
 
 BESTKICTIONS ON PUBLICATIONS 
 
 The importance of periodicals and campaign litera- 
 ture as a means of informing voters of political matters 
 is unquestioned, and the need of preventing newspapers 
 or other publications from deceiving the voters as to 
 ownership of the paper or character of the published 
 article is apparent. To prevent fraud of this character 
 legislation has been enacted in some States (1) to pro- 
 hibit the purchase of editorial support, publication of 
 political advertisements as news, or the publication and 
 distribution of anonymous or libelous campaign litera- 
 ture, and (2) to secure publicity of ownership. 
 
 According to Minnesota legislation no publisher of a
 
 t94 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 newspaper, periodical, or magazine may insert in any part 
 of such publication any paid matter intended to influence, 
 'or such as will tend to influence, voters unless marked 
 in pica capital letters as "Paid Advertisement" with 
 the amount paid, name and address of the candidate in 
 whose behalf the matter is inserted and of any other 
 person authorizing the publication and the author there- 
 •of. Nor may the publisher of any such publication insert 
 in any part of the paper any matter of a political nature, 
 or any political editorial relative to a candidate, unless 
 the publisher files with the Secretary of State within six 
 months before a primary or election, or ten days before 
 a special election, a sworn statement giving the name or 
 names of the owners. 
 
 Candidates or members of personal campaign or 
 party committees having an interest in a newspaper or 
 periodical circulating in whole or in part within the State 
 must, before printing any political matter to influence 
 voters except as paid advertisements, file with the county 
 auditor of the county in which they live a verified declara- 
 tion stating the name of the publication with the exact 
 nature and extent of control. 
 
 No owner, publisher, editor, reporter, agent, or em- 
 ployee of a publication may "directly or indirectly, 
 solicit, receive or accept any payment, promise, or com- 
 pensation, nor shall any person pay or promise to pay, 
 or in any manner compensate any such owner, publisher, 
 editor, reporter, agent or employe, directly or indirectly, 
 for influencing or attempting to influence through any 
 printing matter in such newspaper any voting at any 
 election or primary through any means whatsoever, ex- 
 cept through the matter inserted in such newspaper or 
 periodical as 'Paid Advertisement', and so designated."
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 95 
 
 The Minnesota act further provides that all other 
 campaign literature must bear the name and address of 
 the author, the candidate in whose behalf it is published 
 and circulated, as well as of other persons or committees 
 causing- it to be published. It also provides that no one 
 may knowingly make, publish, or cause to be published, 
 any false statements relative to a candidate or measure 
 to be voted on which will tend to influence or is intended 
 to'influence a voter. 213 
 
 The Texas act directed against corrupt practices pro- 
 hibits publications from receiving political advertising at 
 more than the usual rates. The act also prohibits an 
 editor or manager of a publication from demanding or 
 receiving pay for editorial support or opposition of a 
 candidate or measure. 214 
 
 According to Oregon legislation political literature 
 must bear the name of the author, printer, and publisher. 
 Libelous publications are prohibited, but it is sufficient 
 defense for the person accused to prove that he had 
 reasonable ground for believing the charges were true 
 and that he was not actuated by malice. The author of 
 any such statement of charges must, moreover, at least 
 fifteen days before circulating such statement serve the 
 person accused with a written copy calling his attention 
 specially to the charges. It must also be shown that be- 
 fore circulating the publication the author received and 
 read the denial or explanation of the accused person, if 
 any were offered. 215 
 
 The Ohio law prohibits any newspaper or other pub- 
 lication from demanding through notice printed in its 
 columns, or by personal call of some officer or agent 
 of the publication, promises, pledges, or committals from 
 candidates. 210
 
 96 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW : PROCEDURE 
 
 The failure to prevent corrupt practices lias not been 
 so much the lack of statutory definitions and provisions 
 for penalties as the non-enforcement of the laws en- 
 acted. No special provision for judicial procedure was 
 provided in the earlier laws; nor was it made the duty 
 of any one in particular to enforce the legislative pro- 
 visions. The county attorney, as a county official aptly 
 said, has enough troubles without looking for additional 
 burdens. The electors, feeling no direct interest or 
 knowing the process a difficult one, seldom have taken 
 action. 
 
 To make the law effective the Wisconsin act provides 
 that any elector, having knowledge of the violation of the 
 corrupt practices statute of 1911 by any candidates for 
 whom that elector had a right to vote or by the personal 
 campaign committee of the candidate or by any member 
 of the committee, may, by a verified petition, apply to the 
 county judge of the county in which the violation took 
 place, to the attorney general, or to the governor for 
 permission to bring a special proceeding to investigate 
 and decide whether the charge is true or not, and for the 
 appointment of special counsel to conduct the proceeding 
 for the State. If it appears from the petition ' ' or other- 
 wise" that there has been such violation and that it is 
 possible to secure sufficient evidence to bring successful 
 suit the official appealed to must permit the bringing of 
 the proceedings and must appoint special counsel to con- 
 duct the proceedings. If permission is granted and 
 special counsel appointed, the elector bringing the suit 
 may ' ' by a special proceeding brought in the circuit court 
 in the name of the state upon the relation of such elector.
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 97 
 
 investigate and determine whether or not such candidate, 
 committee or member thereof, has violated any provision 
 of this act. ' ' In the proceeding the complaint giving the 
 name of the offender and detailed grounds for the contest 
 must be served with the summons and filed within five 
 days after being served. The answer to the complaint 
 must be served and filed within ten days after the service 
 of the summons and complaint. An additional five days 
 notice of the trial is required. 
 
 Moreover, an election contest of this character has 
 precedence over any civil case of a different character 
 pending in the court. The court is always to be consid- 
 ered open for trial of these cases, whether in or out of 
 term. The method of trial is the same as in other civil 
 actions, but the court may without a jury decide the facts 
 of the case as well as the issues of law. If more than one 
 case of this nature is before the court at the same time 
 they may be consolidated and heard together, the ex- 
 penses in connection with the cases being apportioned 
 equally. If the decision is for the plaintiff, he may com- 
 pel the defendant to make good his expenditures. The 
 plaintiff may not be compelled to pay any judgment for 
 costs, unless it is shown that the proceeding was not 
 instituted by him in good faith. Moreover, "all costs 
 and disbursements in such cases shall be in the discretion 
 of the court." Appeal may be taken, but the party ap- 
 pealing may not obtain a stay of the proceedings. Nor 
 maj 7 an injunction to suspend or stay any proceeding be 
 issued except by applying to the court, or the presiding 
 judge of the court, upon notifying all parties concerned 
 and after hearing. A candidate or other person involved 
 may also be criminally prosecuted. The special counsel 
 may be paid not to exceed $25 while trying the case and
 
 98 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 not to exceed $10 per day for the time spent in preparing 
 the case. A judgment under this provision does not bar 
 later criminal action. 217 
 
 The New Jersey act makes it the duty of the prose- 
 cutor of the pleas of the county, on being notified by any 
 officer or other person of any violation of the corrupt 
 practices act, to "diligently inquire into the facts of such 
 violation." If there is reasonable ground for prosecu- 
 tion it is made his duty to present the charges, with all 
 the evidence he can procure, to the grand jury of the 
 county. If the # prosecutor fails or refuses to do his duty 
 as required, he is held guilty of a misdemeanor and on 
 conviction forfeits his office. Any citizen may employ an 
 attorney to assist the prosecutor to perform his duties. 
 The prosecutor and court must recognize the attorney as 
 associate counsel in the proceedings. No prosecution, 
 action, or proceeding may be dismissed without notice to 
 or against the objection of the associate counsel until the 
 reasons of the prosecutor for the dismissal with the ob- 
 jections of the associate counsel have been filed in writ- 
 ing, argued by the counsel, and fully considered by the 
 court. The court, however, is empowered to fix the time 
 within which reasons or objections may be filed. The act 
 further provides that a contest must be commenced with- 
 in ten days after the primary or thirty days after a 
 general election, unless the ground of action is discov- 
 ered from the publicity statements filed, when action may 
 be brought not later than ten days or thirty days after 
 such discovery, respectively. An action to annul the 
 nomination or election of any nominated or elected per- 
 son must be filed in the circuit court of the county in 
 which the person resides whose right is contested. 218 
 
 The New Jersey definition of agency is based on the
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 99 
 
 English definition. Moreover, a reason advanced for the 
 success of the English act is its broad definition of 
 agency, preventing a candidate from profiting by the acts 
 of a second party while disclaiming responsibility. Ac- 
 cording to the New Jersey provision ' ' any candidate who 
 procures, aids, assists, counsels, or advises the payment 
 of any money or other valuable thing by or on behalf of 
 a committee selected under the provisions of section one 
 of this act [the section relative to the expenditure of 
 campaign funds by a committee designated by candidate] 
 and such payment is made for any purpose which, if the 
 money was expended by the candidate, would work a for- 
 feiture of the office to which he has been elected, such 
 payment shall be deemed to have been made by such 
 candidate, and he shall forfeit any office to which he may 
 have been elected at the election in reference to which 
 such payment was made by or on behalf of such com- 
 mittee. ' ' The act is modified, however, by the provision 
 that in a case coming before a court under the act where 
 it appears from the evidence that the offense complained 
 of was not committed by the candidate, or with his 
 knowledge, or consent, or was committed without his 
 sanction or connivance, and that all reasonable means 
 were taken by the candidate or for him, or that the of- 
 fenses complained of were trivial, unimportant or limited 
 in character, and that in all respects his candidacy and 
 election were free from all offensive or illegal acts, or 
 that any act or omission of any candidate complained of 
 arose from accidental miscalculation or from some other 
 reasonable cause of a similar nature and not from lack 
 of good faith, and it seems to the court under the circum- 
 stances to be unjust that the candidate shall forfeit his 
 nomination, position or office, then the nomination or
 
 100 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 election may not be declared void nor the candidate re- 
 moved from nor deprived of his nomination, position, or 
 office. The act further provides that if any candidate 
 wishes to avoid the responsibility of a payment made for 
 him by others of which he has knowledge, he must ' ' set 
 forth such payment and disclaim responsibility there- 
 for." 219 
 
 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF ELECTION LAWS 
 
 Penalties imposed for the violation of election laws 
 vary with the nature of the offense and with the States 
 where the act is committed. Fines, imprisonment in jail 
 or penitentiary, loss of charter by corporations or right 
 to do business in the State, disfranchisement, voiding of 
 the election, and disqualification for holding office are the 
 various penalties prescribed in cases of violation. 
 
 Offenders against the English election laws are heard 
 before two judges who are annually selected by the other 
 judges. The judges report their findings to the House of 
 Commons — but their findings are never challenged by 
 the House. According to English legislation every per- 
 son guilty of a corrupt practice — that is, bribery, treat- 
 ing, undue influence, knowingly making a false statement 
 in the return of election expenses, or personation — may 
 be fined, imprisoned, and deprived of his political rights 
 for a period of seven years. In addition, if a candidate 
 is guilty of such corrupt practice, or if bribery or per- 
 sonation has been committed with his knowledge and 
 consent, the election of the candidate is voided and he 
 may never be elected to Parliament by that constituency. 
 Furthermore, if the election court finds that a corrupt 
 practice has been committed by his agents, the candi- 
 date's election is voided and he may not be elected from
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 101 
 
 that constituency for a period' of seven years. Relief, 
 however, may be given in the case of treating or undue 
 influence committed by an agent, other than the candi- 
 date's election agent, if of a trivial nature, and if the 
 candidate and his election agent did not connive at it but 
 took all reasonable means to prevent the commission of 
 such act. For illegal practices the penalties are similar, 
 but not so severe ; and relief may be secured more readily 
 — discretion being left, to a great extent, with the 
 court. 220 
 
 The Florida primary act provides, as a penalty for 
 bribery, disfranchisement of the briber for a term not to 
 exceed ten years and not less than a year's imprison- 
 ment. For a second offense the penalty is disfranchise- 
 ment for life as to primary elections ; and the offender 
 may also be sentenced to serve not more than five years 
 in the penitentiary. 221 
 
 Indiana legislation provides that a person guilty of 
 bribery may be fined, deprived of his political rights 
 for any determinate period, and, if elected to office, his 
 election is voided. 222 In accordance with the Minnesota 
 law a corporation guilty of making political contributions 
 may be fined not to exceed $10,000, and if a domestic 
 concern it may be deprived of its charter. If the offender 
 is a foreign corporation, it may, in addition to the fine, be 
 deprived of its right to do business in the State. The 
 agent of the corporation making the payment may be 
 fined from $100 to $5,000, or sentenced to serve from one 
 to five years in the penitentiary, or both. Violation of 
 the act by an officer of the corporation is considered 
 prima facie evidence of violation by the corporation. 223 
 Violation of the New Jersey corrupt practices act is made 
 a misdemeanor and punished as such. In case of an
 
 102 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 elected candidate being found guilty his election is also 
 voided. This includes the failure on the part of a candi- 
 date to file a statement of his election receipts and ex- 
 penditures. 224 The Wisconsin act provides that any 
 person violating its provisions may upon conviction be 
 punished by a jail sentence of from one month to one 
 year, by a penitentiary sentence of from one to three 
 years, or by a fine of from $25 to $1,000, or by both a fine 
 and imprisonment. The conviction of a candidate elected 
 to office voids his election. 225
 
 IV 
 
 SUGGESTIONS FOR REFORM IN THE CORRUPT 
 PRACTICES LEGISLATION OF IOWA 
 
 A comparison of the legislation in Iowa on corrupt prac- 
 tices with the provisions of the more advanced State 
 laws directed against such offenses reveals the fact that 
 the Iowa provisions are incomplete and fragmentary. 
 
 RE-DEFINITION OF CORRUPT PRACTICES 
 
 It is apparent that a re-definition of the grosser forms 
 of election offenses would be desirable in this State. The 
 English definitions, which are quite comprehensive and 
 which have served as models for other States, could safe- 
 ly be followed in Iowa. Treating ought to be prohibited 
 entirely in connection with political campaigns. The pre- 
 vention of undue influence through any sort of election- 
 eering, distribution of political literature, distribution or 
 wearing of political insignia on primary or election day 
 would also seem advisable. In fact it would seem desir- 
 able to prohibit all forms of political activity on the part 
 of candidates or their agents after the Saturday night 
 prior to the Monday or Tuesday on which the election is 
 held. Furthermore, there seems to be no good reason why 
 a candidate or party should be permitted to turn a polit- 
 ical campaign into a continuous vaudeville performance 
 and through numerous bands, elaborate posters, display 
 of banners, buttons, and other political marks of distinc- 
 tion seek to influence voters to cast their ballots for the 
 
 103
 
 104 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 candidates or party making the most noise or the biggest 
 show. 
 
 RESPONSIBILITY IN HANDLING CAMPAIGN FUNDS 
 
 Again, Iowa legislation does not now require that 
 political funds pass through the hands of any certain 
 responsible person or committee. It is true that the law 
 requires the candidate to include in his filed statement 
 the sums he knows to have been expended by others in 
 his behalf ; but this too often means simply that the candi- 
 date takes care to be ignorant of any such payments by 
 others, or that those making expenditures for him are 
 very careful to keep him in ignorance of such expend- 
 itures on their part. Nor is there any restriction in the 
 Iowa law as to the amount that may be received from 
 individuals during the whole campaign or prior to the 
 campaign. 
 
 PARTY ASSESSMENTS 
 
 Regarding party assessments the only requirement is 
 that they be included in the candidate 's statement. With 
 our present theory of party support this is a difficult 
 point on which to legislate. It is true that in some States 
 the law provides that party assessments shall be volun- 
 tary; but such provisions mean very little in practice. 
 Aside from being wrong in principle, the chief objection 
 to the party assessments in Iowa is that locally the con- 
 tribution too often goes to the support and maintenance 
 of a ''county courthouse gang". That all non-elective 
 officers and employees ought to be protected from assess- 
 ments by prohibitive laws is a proposition that will hard- 
 ly be questioned.
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 105 
 
 LIMITATIONS ON EXPENDITURES: CONVEYANCE OF VOTERS 
 
 There is no provision in the Iowa statutes regarding 
 the total amount which the party or candidate may ex- 
 pend. Nor is there any attempt to restrict to legitimate 
 educative purposes the money used by candidates or 
 parties. One of the chief expenditures in an Iowa cam- 
 paign is for transportation of voters to the polls. Even 
 in our school elections — which in many places have de- 
 generated into squabbles among banks for the control of 
 school funds — voters are besieged by political workers 
 urging them to make use of their conveyances. It would 
 seem advisable to eliminate this method of influencing 
 voters by prohibiting the transportation of voters to or 
 from the polls or any part of the way. A citizen who 
 does not take enough interest in his right of franchise to 
 walk to the polls or furnish or pay for his own convey- 
 ance would hardly seem to be a desirable factor in the 
 election. If a voter is infirm, or lives at a distance and is 
 too poor to secure transportation, it might be well to 
 provide some method of State aid similar to that found 
 in New Jersey. 220 
 
 STATEMENTS OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES 
 
 While the Iowa law requires that candidates and po- 
 litical committees file statements of political contribu- 
 tions and expenditures, yet an examination into the 
 manner in which the law is observed, and the inade- 
 quacy of the law even if observed, indicates the need 
 of amending these provisions. In the first place state- 
 ments ought to be filed before as well as after primaries 
 and elections. Again, the law merely requires the filing 
 of the statements with the proper officials without making- 
 it anybody's business to see that such information is
 
 106 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 really filed or that the statements when filed meet the 
 requirements of the law. When received the statements 
 are now filed away, there being no provision for publicity 
 through newspapers or otherwise. It is doubtful if the 
 majority of the statements filed are ever opened and 
 examined. The filed reports are, as a matter of fact, 
 often incomplete as to the information required. The 
 date of the contribution or expenditure is often omitted ; 
 so also are the names of the donor or recipient in case of 
 an expenditure. The contributions and expenditures are 
 not always given in detail. In fact, the space for con- 
 tributions is often left blank, as is sometimes also the 
 space for expenditures — the inference being that there 
 were no contributions or expenditures. 227 There is no 
 provision for vouchers for expenditures or other method 
 of auditing. The payment of claims ought to be per- 
 mitted only within a certain time. 
 
 CONTEOL OF VOLUNTEEE OEGANIZATIONS 
 
 Another important problem in corrupt practices legis- 
 lation is the control of the political activities of volunteer 
 organizations. It would seem that the public is at least 
 entitled to know how much various organizations, which 
 are non-partisan and throw their influence to the party 
 or candidates, who through principle or intimidation are 
 favorable to the purposes of such organizations, spend in 
 the primaries and elections and for what purpose such 
 expenditures are made. 228 
 
 An influence of a similar character, but less tangible 
 and therefore more dangerous and more difficult to reach 
 through legislation, is the activity of the local boss and 
 his co-workers who are in the political game for love of 
 the excitement or personal interest or, as is more often
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 107 
 
 the case, as representatives of some interest or allied 
 interests — the so-called ''invisible government" desir- 
 ing to control politics. As to all such who seek to secure 
 the nomination and election of men not necessarily cor- 
 rupt but rather in fact men who through birth, environ- 
 ment, or economic interest are "acceptable" to special 
 interests, no corrupt practices act seems thus far to have 
 been well enough drawn or enforced to prevent their 
 activities. 229 Indeed, along this line public opinion 
 rather than formal legislation must be relied upon. 
 Until men see that money paid for "political work" is as 
 a rule bribery in a disguised form, the eradication of 
 such conditions and the prevention of the influence of 
 such men in our politics through legislation seems quite 
 impossible. 
 
 STATE AID TO POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS : OFFICIAL INFORMATION 
 
 Iowa has no provision for State aid to political cam- 
 paigns. The most essential thing for a candidate 
 desirous of serving the public as an officeholder is that 
 he may have some means of placing before the voters a 
 statement of the principles he favors and of his qualifica- 
 tions for the office. Moreover, it is still more important 
 that the voters be furnished with at least a minimum of 
 reliable information concerning the multitude of candi- 
 dates whose names appear on our long ballots. It is 
 possible that the most convenient and economical method 
 would be to have the State take charge of such publicity 
 through a system of publishing and distributing cam- 
 paign books like that in force in Wisconsin or Oregon. 
 Considering the purpose and character of such service 
 there appears to be no good reason why the government 
 should not perform it without charge. As to a system of
 
 108 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 direct financial aid to parties this would seem even more 
 difficult. An objection to the Colorado plan — which af- 
 forded financial support according to party vote, with 
 prohibition of outside contributions except by candidates 
 — is that such a system would tend to maintain the 
 dominant party in power and discourage the growth of 
 minor parties or the development of new parties. 
 
 A further aid to political parties that would seem 
 altogether proper is some provision for the opening of 
 public buildings, such as school houses and auditoriums 
 of State-supported colleges and universities, for political 
 meetings freely and without charge. 
 
 RESTRICTIONS ON PUBLICATIONS 
 
 Iowa has no legislation regulating the political activ- 
 ity of newspapers and other publications, or the publi- 
 cation and distribution of political dodgers of various 
 sorts. That this is an essential feature of a compre- 
 hensive and adequate corrupt practices act can not be 
 questioned. Indeed, it is a well known fact that some of 
 the more influential dailies as well as some of the rural 
 weeklies have been suspected of operating under corrupt 
 influences in matters political. It must also be admitted 
 that paid political matter appears in the columns of some 
 papers as news or as editorials with no indication that 
 such is their real character. The campaign "roorback" 
 is of as recent appearance as the 1912 spring primaries. 
 Nor is the real ownership of our papers generally known. 
 For regulation along these lines it would seem that the 
 Minnesota act would be a good model, especially for pro- 
 visions regarding the labeling of paid political matter 
 and the giving of official notice of ownership of papers 
 publishing political matter. Other provisions of the Min-
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 109 
 
 nesota act which might well be written into the Iowa 
 statutes are those which relate to the (1) soliciting or 
 receiving of pay for the political influence of a publica- 
 tion except as paid advertising, (2) providing that all 
 campaign literature bear the name and address of the 
 author, of the candidate in whose behalf it is published, 
 and of any other person or committee responsible for the 
 publishing of the literature, and (3) prohibiting anyone 
 from publishing false statements intended to influence 
 voters regarding candidates or measures to be voted 
 upon. 230 The Oregon provision directed against libelous 
 campaign literature is, perhaps, stronger than that of 
 Minnesota. 231 
 
 METHODS OF PEOCEDUEE 
 
 As already indicated the weakness in corrupt prac- 
 tices prevention has been in the method of procedure. 
 Iowa legislation provides no special procedure for hand- 
 ling corrupt practices offenses. The problem is to devise 
 some method which will force the public prosecutor to act 
 or some method for independent action on the part of the 
 people who desire to enforce the law and at the same time 
 prevent election contests on flimsy or false grounds. It 
 would seem that the Wisconsin provision is the best plan 
 thus far provided by any State. 232 
 
 PENALTIES 
 
 Another problem for Iowa legislation is the nature of 
 the penalties for the violation of corrupt practices pro- 
 visions. It is doubtful whether the system of fines and 
 imprisonment alone is effective. Moreover, where such 
 penalties are imposed by the Iowa laws their application 
 seems to be a matter of guesswork. Thus, for undue
 
 110 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 influence exercised by employers the penalty is a fine of 
 from $5 to $100. As suggested above, this penalty has 
 not noticeably deterred large employers from attempts 
 to influence their employees. It would seem that in mat- 
 ters of this sort some attempt should be made to fit the 
 penalty to the nature of the offense. Corporations, either 
 foreign or domestic, when guilty of violating the election 
 laws ought not to be allowed to cany on business within 
 the State. Moreover, in addition to penalties in the form 
 of fines and imprisonment, violation of corrupt practices 
 provisions by a candidate or his agents ought to void the 
 election. In addition it would seem that any person 
 guilty of such violation should be deprived of his political 
 rights, at least for a limited period. The provisions for 
 punishing violators of corrupt practices acts contained 
 in the English law and in the recent State laws of Oregon, 
 Minnesota, or Wisconsin seem altogether unobjection- 
 able. 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 Thus it appears from an historical analysis of corrupt 
 practices legislation in Iowa and from a comparative 
 study of legislation and administrative methods in other 
 jurisdictions that this State is in need of a comprehensive 
 corrupt practices act which will define more fully both 
 corrupt practices and illegal practices, provide more ade- 
 quate provisions for penalties and procedure, establish a 
 system of State aid in campaigns, and above all aim at 
 preventative methods and measures.
 
 NOTES AND REFERENCES 
 
 in
 
 NOTES AND REFERENCES 
 
 i Quoted from a pamphlet containing Becommendations by the President, 
 five Governors, and an Attorney General on Corrupt Practices in Elections 
 sent out by Bobert Luce, p. 4. 
 
 2 Chicago Eecord-Eerald, 25th Year, No. 113, September 18, 1905. 
 
 The gradual demoralization of the whole electorate by means of bribery 
 is strikingly described by Mr. George Kennan in these words: 
 
 "When Mr. Addicks' agents first began to buy votes in southern Dela- 
 ware, they could ' get ' only a part of the negroes, and a few men from the 
 poorest class of whites; but the corrupting influence of money, used boldly 
 and with impunity throughout a long series of years, finally had its effect 
 upon men of a higher type — men who could not plead poverty as an excuse 
 for their acts. Well-to-do farmers in Sussex County, who own their farms 
 and have money in the bank, now sell their votes regularly every other year; 
 and as for the colored population, which polls in the two lower counties a 
 vote of about five thousand, it has been corrupted en masse. Many in- 
 formants in Kent and Sussex told me that in the circle of their personal 
 acquaintance they did not know a single negro who 'voted his sentiments'. 
 Every man of them sold his vote for what it would bring. ' ' — The Outlook, 
 Vol. LXXIII, No. 8, p. 432. 
 
 s Christie 's The Ballot and Corruption and Expenditure at Elections, 
 p. 91. 
 
 4 Laws of the Territory of Michigan, Vol. I, pp. 527-529. This act was 
 copied from the laws of New York, Ohio, and Vermont. 
 
 5 Laws of the Territory of Michigan, Vol. II, p. 280. 
 
 s Laws of the Territory of Michigan, Vol. II, p. 563. 
 
 7 Laws of the Territory of Michigan, Vol. II, p. 645. 
 
 8 Shambaugh's Documentary Material Belating to the History of Iowa*, 
 Vol. I, p. 76. 
 
 sShambaugh's Documentary Material Belating to the History of Iowa, 
 Vol. II, p. 284. 
 
 io Shambaugh 's Documentary Material Belating to the History of Iowa*, 
 Vol. I, p. 78. 
 
 8 113
 
 114 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 11 Laws of the Territory of Wisconsin, 1836-1838, pp. 408, 409. 
 
 12 Shambaugh 's Documentary Material Relating to the History of Iowa, 
 Vol. I, pp. 107, 112, 113. 
 
 is Laws of the Territory of Iowa, 1838-1839, pp. 185-196. Sections 11 
 and 12 of this act relate to corrupt practices. 
 
 i-t Revised Statutes of the Territory of Iowa, 1842-1843, pp. 248, 249. 
 
 is Laws of the Territory of Iowa (Extra Session), 1840, pp. 20, 21. 
 
 i° Quoted from the Iowa Capital Reporter in the Bloomington Herald 
 (New Series), Vol. I, No. 27, November 20, 1846. 
 
 it The Bloomington Herald (New Series), Vol. I, No. 27, November 20, 
 1846. 
 
 is Quoted from the Iowa Capital Reporter in the Bloomington Herald 
 (New Series), Vol. I, No. 28, November 27, 1846. 
 
 is The Bloomington Herald (New Series), Vol. I, No. 28, November 27, 
 1846. 
 
 20 The Iowa Standard (New Series), Vol. II, No. 5, August 11, 1847. 
 
 2i Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 31st Congress, Part II, pp. 1292- 
 1296. 
 
 This case is of special interest in that it brought to light a letter showing 
 that pressure in the nature of religious influence was used to induce the 
 Morn jn voters to cast their ballots for the "Whig candidate. A part of the 
 letter is quoted in a speech by Mr. Leffler. 
 
 "Burlington, (Iowa,) July 8, 1850 [1848]. 
 Dear Friends and Brethren: 
 
 It has seemed good unto me, your brother and companion in tribulation 
 and counsellor in the church of God, to advise and request you to cast your 
 votes at the ensuing election in favor of the Whig candidates for office. 
 This letter is placed in the hands of Colonel F. H. Warren, who will give 
 you, or cause the same to be done, all necessary information how and where 
 to act. . . . 
 
 Your brother in Christ, 
 
 Orson Hyde." 
 
 — Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 31st Congress, Appendix, pp. 818-823. 
 
 This incident is discussed in Pelzer's The History and Principles of the 
 Democratic Party of Iowa in The Iowa Journal of History and Politics, 
 Vol. VI, pp. 181-184. 
 
 22 Fairall 's Manual of Iowa Politics, Vol. I, p. 24.
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 115 
 
 23 Ethyl E. Martin's A Bribery Episode in the First Election of United 
 States Senators in Iowa in The Ioica Journal of History and Politics, Vol. 
 VII, pp. 483-502. 
 
 In this connection mention may be made of the fact that the first re- 
 corded instance of legislative bribery and bribery of a voter in Iowa 
 occurred while Iowa was a part of the original Territory of Wisconsin. This 
 was the case of Alexander W. McGregor, a member of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives from the county of Dubuque. McGregor seems to have promised 
 John Wilson that he would secure for him a franchise for a ferry privilege 
 in return for a sum of money and Wilson's influence to secure his election. 
 — See Parish's The Bribery of Alexander W. McGregor in The lorva Journal 
 of History and Politics, Vol. Ill, pp. 384-398. 
 
 24 Clark's History of Senatorial Elections in Ioiva, Chapter I. 
 
 25 Laics of Iowa. 1849, pp. 132-135. 
 
 26 Code of 1851, pp. 371-373. 
 
 27 Revision of 1860, pp. 742-744. 
 
 28 Code of 1873, pp. 622-624. 
 
 29 Journal of the House of Representatives, 1858, pp. 223, 303, 383, 631, 
 642. 657, 750, 761. 
 
 30 Journal of the Senate, 1858, pp. 580, 581, 600. 
 
 3i Journal of the House of Representatives, 1868, pp. 106, 112, 204. 
 
 32 Journal of the Senate, 1872, p. 365. 
 
 33 Journal of the Senate. 1876, p. 120. 
 
 34 Journal of the House of Representatives, 1878, pp. 52, 230, 239. 
 
 35 Journal of the Senate, 1878, pp. 183, 187, 287. 
 
 36 Journal of the House of Representatives, 1878, pp. 68, 537. 
 
 37 Laws of Iowa. 1880, p. 79. 
 
 38 Journal of the Senate, 1880, pp. 60, 372. 
 
 39 Journal of the Senate, 1880, pp. 60, 270. 
 
 ■*o Journal of the House of Representatives, 1880, pp. 400, 429. 
 4i Journal of the Senate, 1884, pp. 399, 566. 
 
 42 Shambaugh's Messages and Proclamations of the Governors of Iowa, 
 Vol. VI, p. 8. 
 
 43 Laws of Iowa, 1886, p. 192.
 
 116 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 44 Journal of the House of Representatives, 1886, pp. 238, 343, 719. 
 
 ■*•"• Shambaugh 's Messages and Proclamations of the Governors of Iowa, 
 Vol. VI, p. 88. 
 
 46 Journal of the Rouse of Representatives, 1888, pp. 144, 487, 515, 516. 
 
 *~ Journal of the Senate, 1888, pp. 516, 518, 964. 
 
 48 Shambaugh 's Messages and Proclamations of the Governors of Iowa, 
 Vol. VI, pp. 275, 276. 
 
 49 Journal of the Senate, 1890, pp. 86, 91, 92 ; also Journal of the House 
 of Representatives, 1890, pp. 121, 124, 130. 
 
 so Shambaugh 's Messages and Proclamations of the Governors of Iowa, 
 Vol. VI, pp. 336, 337. 
 
 si Journal of the Bouse of Representatives, 1892, pp. 78, 79, 84, 106, 107, 
 108, 120, 145, 172, 182, 218, 223, 249, 269, 270, 271, 279, 297, 298, 309, 333, 
 419; also Journal of the Senate, 1892, pp. 81, 132, 140, 182, 183, 192, 196, 
 216, 217, 242, 287, 315. 
 
 52 Laws of Iowa, 1892, pp. 47-62. 
 
 53 Shambaugh 's Messages and Proclamations of the Governors of Iotva, 
 Vol. VI, p. 276. 
 
 54 The report of the Des Moines division of the Amalgamated Association 
 of Street and Electric Kaihvay Employees, printed in the Register and 
 Leader, Vol. LXIII, July 31, 1912, in showing the improved conditions of 
 the street car workers states that "under the old order of things .... 
 we were expected to carry out the wishes of the Company on matters 
 political. ' ' 
 
 ss Laws of Iotva, 1892, p. 58. 
 
 56 Journal of the House of Representatives, 1892, pp. 149, 253, 621. 
 
 57 Journal of the Senate, 1892, p. 575. 
 
 58 Journal of the House of Representatives, 1894, pp. 84, 163, 275. 
 
 59 Journal of the Senate, 1894, pp. 176, 293, 669. 
 eo Laws of Iowa, 1894, p. 62. 
 
 oi Code of 1897, pp. 1935-1937. 
 02 Code of 1851, pp. 371-373. 
 
 63 Laws of Iowa, 1894, p. 62. 
 
 64 Code of 1897, pp. 419-421.
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 117 
 
 65 Laws of Iowa, 1892, pp. 58-60. 
 
 66 Code of 1897, p. 861. 
 
 67 Code of 1897, p. 1948. 
 
 68 Journal of the Senate, 1898, p. 579. 
 «9 Laws of Iowa, 1898, p. 70. 
 
 "Jo Bouse File, No. 251, Twenty-ninth General Assembly (1902). 
 7i Journal of the House of Representatives, 1902, p. 1248. 
 
 72 Ioica Documents, 1904, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 15, 16. 
 
 73 Laws of Iowa, 1904, p. 36. 
 
 7* Bowse File, No. 30, Thirtieth General Assembly (1904); Journal of 
 the House, 1904, pp. 104, 313. 
 
 75 House File, No. 84, Thirtieth General Assembly (1904); Journal of 
 the House, 1904, pp. 121, 287. 
 
 76 House File, No. 253, Thirtieth General Assembly (1904); Journal of 
 the House, 1904, pp. 278, 1085. 
 
 77 House File, No. 97, Thirtieth General Assembly (1904); Journal of 
 the House, 1904, pp. 129, 322. 
 
 78 House File, No. 85, Thirty-first General Assembly (1906) ; Journal of 
 the House, 1906, pp. 162, 1088, 1166, 1167. 
 
 is House File, No. 162, Thirty-first General Assembly (1906). 
 
 so Journal of the House of Representatives, 1906, p. 948. 
 
 si House File, No. 163, Thirty-first General Assembly (1906). 
 
 82 Journal of the House of Representatives, 1906, pp. 398, 399. 
 
 83 Ioiva Documents, 1906, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 13. 
 
 84 Register and Leader (Des Moines), Vol. LVII, No. 272, March 31, 
 1907. 
 
 ss Register and Leader (Des Moines), Vol. LVII, No. 282, April 10, 1907. 
 so Iowa Official Register, 1907-1908, p. 389. 
 87 Iowa Official Register, 1907-1908, p. 393. 
 ss Iowa Documents, 1907, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 23, 24. 
 
 so Journal of the Senate, 1907, pp. 142, 217, 229, 230, 269, 270, 589, 719, 
 720, 874, 875.
 
 118 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 so Senate File, No. 38, Thirty-second General Assembly (1907); also 
 Laws of Iowa, 1907, pp. 76, 77. 
 
 si Journal of the House of Bepresentatives, 1907, pp. 300, 314, 476, 501, 
 540, 597, 658, 659, 660. 
 
 92 Laws of Iowa, 1907, pp. 76, 77. 
 
 93 Iowa Documents, 1907, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 24. 
 
 94 House File, No. 10, Thirty-second General Assembly (1907); Journal 
 of the House of Bepresentatives, 1907, p. 110. 
 
 95 House File, No. 477, Thirty-second General Assembly (1907); Journal 
 of the House of Bepresentatives, 1907, pp. 1198-1200, 1243, 1244, 1269, 
 1270, 1370, 1461-1463. 
 
 96 Journal of the Senate, 1907, pp. 1401. 
 
 97 Laws of Iowa, 1907, pp. 50, 51. 
 
 98 Laws of Iowa, 1907, pp. 63, 64. 
 
 Senator J. J. Crossley was, perhaps, the most active member of the 
 General Assembly in securing the passage of this legislation. In 1902 he 
 introduced a primary bill, Senate File, No. 2; in 1904, Senate File, No. 3; 
 in 1906, Senate File, No. 2; and in 1907, Senate File, No. 3. As a member 
 of the Committee on Elections he had much to do with the shaping of the 
 bill finally enacted into law. In an article on The Begulation of Primary 
 Elections by Law in The Iowa Journal of History and Politics, Vol. I, 1903, 
 pp. 165-192, Senator Crossley reviews the evolution of the primary method 
 of nominating candidates. 
 
 99 Hamilton's The Dethronement of the City Boss, p. 93. 
 
 ioo Laws of Iowa, 1907, pp. 41, 42, 44. 
 
 ioi House File, No. 265, Thirty-second General Assembly (1907); Jour- 
 nal of the House of Bepresentatives, 1907, pp. 341, 906. 
 
 102 House File, No. 359, Thirty-second General Assembly (1907). 
 
 103 Journal of the House of Bepresentatives, 1907, p. 594. 
 
 10* House File, No. 284, Thirty-third General Assembly (1909); Journal 
 of the House of Bepresentatives, 1909, pp. 475, 1038, 1342. 
 
 ioo Senate File, No. 268, Thirty-third General Assembly (1909) ; Journal 
 of the Senate, 1909, pp. 546, 652, 938, 939. 
 
 ioo Laws of Iowa, 1911, p. 39. 
 
 io7 Senate File, No. 46, Thirty-fourth General Assembly (1911) ; Journal 
 of the Senate, 1911, p. 1057.
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 119 
 
 108 House File, No. 95, Thirty-fourth General Assembly (1911) ; Journal 
 of the House of Representatives, 1911, p. 476. 
 
 109 Laws of the Territory of Michigan, Vol. I, p. 529. 
 no Laws of the Territory of Michigan, Vol. II, p. 563. 
 in Laws of Iowa, 1849, p. 133. 
 
 us Code of 1851, p. 371. 
 
 ii3 Laws of Iowa, 1907, p. 42. 
 
 ii4 Laws of Iowa, 1907, pp. 63, 64. 
 
 us Laws of Iowa, 1894, p. 62. 
 
 lie Laws of Iowa, 1886, p. 192. 
 
 n7 Laws of Iowa, 1892, p. 60. 
 
 us Kelso vs. Wright, 110 Iowa 560. 
 
 us Carrothers vs. Russel, 53 Iowa 346. 
 
 120 in the Iowa elections of 1910 the railroad interests were desirous of 
 defeating one of the Republican candidates for Railroad Commissioner. 
 The following is the form of a sample ballot distributed by the railroads to 
 their employees: 
 
 
 For Railroad Commissioner vote for frw 
 
 o: 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 David J. Palmer 
 
 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 James H. Wilson 
 
 
 
 To 
 
 vote place 
 
 X in 
 
 [X] before each name 
 
 as 
 
 above. 
 
 121 Pelzer's The History and Principles of the Democratic Party of Iowa 
 in The Iowa Journal of History and Politics, Vol. VI, p. 182. 
 
 122 Laivs of the Territory of Michigan, Vol. I, p. 529. 
 
 123 Laws of the Territory of Michigan, Vol. II, p. 563. 
 
 124 Laws of Iowa, 1849, p. 133. 
 
 125 Code of 1851, pp. 371, 372. 
 
 126 Register and Leader (Des Moines), March, 1912. 
 
 127 Laws of Iowa, 1886, p. 192. 
 
 128 Laws of Iowa, 1892, pp. 59, 60. 
 
 129 Code of 1897, pp. 419, 421, 1936, 1937.
 
 120 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 130 Register and Leader (Des Moines), Vol. LXII, No. 352, June 18, 
 1912. 
 
 131 Laws of Iowa, 1894, p. G2. 
 
 132 Laws of Iowa, 1886, p. 193. 
 
 133 Laws of Iowa, 1904, p. 36. 
 
 134 Laws of Iowa, 1907, p. 63. 
 
 135 Laws of Iowa, 1907, pp. 41, 42. 
 
 136 Quoted from Jones's Headings on Parties and Elections, pp. 261, 262. 
 
 137 Laws of Iowa, 1898, p. 70. 
 
 138 Laws of Iowa, 1907, p. 44. 
 
 is* Register and Leader (Des Moines), Vol. LXI, No. 130, November 8, 
 1910; The Marshalltown Times-Republican, Vol. XXXVI, No. 263, Novem- 
 ber 8, 1910, and No. 264, November 8, 1910. 
 
 i4o Laws of Iowa, 1892, p. 47. 
 
 i4i Laws of Iowa, 1892, p. 58. 
 
 142 Laws of the Territory of Michigan, Vol. II, p. 563. 
 
 143 Laws of Ioica, 1880, p. 79. 
 
 144 Laws of Iowa, 1907, p. 51. 
 
 145 Laws of the Territory of Iowa, 183S-1839, pp. 166, 188, 189. 
 
 146 Laics of Iowa, 1849, p. 133. 
 
 147 Code of 1851, pp. 371-373. 
 
 148 State vs. Douglas, 7 Iowa 413. 
 
 149 State vs. Sheeley, 15 Iowa 404. 
 iso State vs. Minnick, 15 Iowa 123. 
 i5i State vs. Savre, 129 Iowa 122. 
 
 152 Laws of Iowa, 1898, pp. 59, 60. 
 
 153 Laws of Iowa, 1904, p. 36. 
 
 154 Laws of Iowa, 1907, pp. 63, 64. 
 
 155 Laws of Iowa, 1907, p. 42. 
 
 156 Code of 1897, p. 1949. 
 
 157 Quoted from The Marshalltown Times-Republican.
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 121 
 
 158 The Marshalltown Times-Republican for March 12, 1912. 
 
 159 Laws of Iowa, 1907, pp. 76, 77. 
 
 160 Latvs of Iowa, 1898, p. 70. 
 i6i Laws of Iowa, 1907, p. 44. 
 
 162 Laws of Iowa, 1911, p. 39. 
 
 163 Laws of Iowa, 1907, pp. 50, 51. 
 
 164 Jelf' s The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Acts, 1883 and 
 1895, (London, 1905), pp. 83-218. 
 
 163 Powell's The Essentials of Self -Government, (London, 1909), p. 169. 
 
 166 Registration and Election Latvs, Delaware, (Dover, 1910), p. 129. 
 
 167 Election Law, Indiana, (Indianapolis, 1910), p. 111. 
 
 168 General Election Laws, Oklahoma, 1911, p. 29. 
 
 169 Election Laws, Montana, (Helena, 1910), p. 86. 
 
 no General Election Laws, State of Washington, (1910), p. 61. 
 i7i Election Laws, Illinois, (Springfield, 1910), p. 60. 
 
 172 General Laws, Special Session of 1912, Minnesota, (Minneapolis, 
 1912), pp. 26, 27. 
 
 173 Election Laws, Missouri, (Jefferson City, 1911), pp. 151, 152. 
 
 174 Statutes Relating to Elections, Oregon, (Salem, 1911), p. 177. 
 
 175 Statutes Relating to Elections, Oregon, (Salem, 1911), pp. 175, 176, 
 179. 
 
 176 General Laws, Special Session of 1912, Minnesota, (Minneapolis, 
 1912), p. 28. 
 
 Another purpose of the provision referred to is to prevent the useless 
 waste of money, since badges, buttons, and similar decorations are hardly 
 of any educational value, but serve merely to make a show for the candi- 
 date or party. 
 
 177 Jelf 's The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Acts, 1883 and 
 1895, (London, 1905), p. 210. 
 
 i7S Election Law, New York, (Albany, 1911), pp. 194-204. 
 
 179 Election Law, Indiana, 1909, (Indianapolis, 1910), p. 110. 
 
 ■lsq Election Laws, Kentucky, (1911), p. 69.
 
 122 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 181 Supplement to an Act to Begulate Elections, New Jersey, (Trenton, 
 1911), p. 11. 
 
 182 General Laws, Special Session of 1912, Minnesota, (Minneapolis, 
 1912), pp. 27, 28. 
 
 183 Supplement to an Act to Begulate Elections, New Jersey, (Trenton, 
 1911), p. 17. 
 
 184 Election Laws, Kentucky, (1911), pp. 70, 71. 
 
 185 A pamphlet containing a copy of all measures "Referred to the 
 People by the Legislative Assembly", Oregon, (Salem, 1908), p. 103. 
 
 186 Statutes Belating to Elections, Oregon, (Salem, 1911), pp. 174, 175. 
 
 187 Bevised Statutes, Penal Code, Arizona, (1901), p. 1190. 
 
 188 Laws of Ohio, 1911, p. 255. 
 
 189 Begistration and Election Laws, Maryland, (1911), pp. 120-123. 
 
 190 Supplement to an Act to Begulate Elections, New Jersey, (Trenton, 
 1911), pp. 3, 4. 
 
 i9i General Laws, Special Session of 1912, Minnesota, (Minneapolis, 
 1912), pp. 29, 33. 
 
 192 Amendments to Corrupt Practices Law, Special Session, Wisconsin, 
 (Madison, 1912), p. 4. 
 
 193 General Laws, Special Session of 1912, Minnesota, (Minneapolis, 
 1912), pp. 25, 33. 
 
 19* Supplement to An Act to Begulate Elections, New Jersey, (Trenton, 
 1911), pp. 8, 9. 
 
 195 Code Supplement of West Virginia, 1909, p. 22. 
 
 196 Election Laws, "Wyoming, (Sheridan, 1911), pp. 74, 75. 
 
 isi Statutes Belating to Elections, Oregon, (Salem, 1911), pp. 163-169. 
 
 198 General Election Laws, Nebraska, (Lincoln, 1911), pp. 84-86. 
 
 199 Laws of Maine, 1911, p. 128. 
 
 200 General Laivs, Special Session of 1912, Minnesota, (Minneapolis, 
 1912), pp. 23, 26, 29, 30. 
 
 201 Acts and Besolves of Massachusetts, 1911, p. 602. 
 
 In a primary a candidate may expend money for one conveyance to 
 bring voters to the polls. The English act prohibits hiring of vehicles, but 
 a candidate may use his own or borrow those of his friends. Naturally this
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 123 
 
 has worked out directly opposite to the intention of the framers of the law 
 in that the well-to-do are well supplied while the poorer candidates have 
 few or none. The effect on the voters may easily be imagined. 
 
 202 Supplement to an Act to Regulate Elections, New Jersey, (Trenton, 
 1911), pp. 9, 10. 
 
 203 Brooks's Corruption in American Politics and Life, Ch. VI. This 
 author gives a good discussion of campaign contributions and the publicity 
 of campaign contributions and expenditures. 
 
 204 General Laws, Special Session of 1912, Minnesota, (Minneapolis, 
 1912), pp. 30-36. 
 
 205 Statutes Relating to Elections, Oregon, (Salem, 1911), pp. 170-174. 
 
 206 Jelf's The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Acts, 1883 and 
 1895, (London, 1905), p. 134. 
 
 207 Election Law, New York, (Albany, 1911), p. 223. 
 
 208 Supplement to an Act to Regulate Elections, New Jersey, (Trenton, 
 1911), pp. 6-8. 
 
 209 General Laws, Special Session of 1912, Minnesota, (Minneapolis, 
 1912), p. 30. 
 
 210 Session Laics of Colorado, 1909, pp. 303-305. This act provided for 
 the paying of election expenses by the State and candidates only. Each 
 party was to receive for campaign purposes twenty-five cents for each vote 
 cast at the last preceding general election for the nominee for Governor of 
 that political party. A candidate might expend forty per cent of the first 
 year's salary, or if paid by fees, twenty-five per cent of the fees collected 
 during the preceding year. This statute, however, has been declared void by 
 the Supreme Court of Colorado. 
 
 The Minnesota bill as first introduced provided for free campaign books; 
 but this provision was eliminated before the bill became a law. 
 
 2ii Statutes Relating to Elections, Oregon, (Salem, 1911), pp. 163-169. 
 
 212 Wisconsin Corrupt Practices Law, 1911, (Madison, 1912), pp. 9-11. 
 
 213 General Laws, Special Session of 1912, Minnesota, (Minneapolis, 
 1912), pp. 23-26. 
 
 214 The Terrell Election Law, Texas, (Austin, 1908), p. 33. 
 
 2i5 Statutes Relating to Elections, Oregon, (Salem, 1911), pp. 179, 180. 
 
 216 Sections of the General Code Pertaining to Elections, Ohio, (Colum- 
 bus, 1911), p. 29.
 
 124 APPLIED HISTORY 
 
 217 Wisconsin Corrupt Practices Law, 1911, (Madison, 1912), pp. 13-15. 
 
 218 Supplement to an Act to Regulate Elections, New Jersey, (Trenton, 
 1911), pp. 19-21. 
 
 219 Supplement to an Act to Eegulate Elections, New Jersey, (Trenton, 
 1911), pp. 6, 20, 21. 
 
 220 Jelf s The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Acts, 1883 and 
 1895, (London, 1905), pp. 89-115, 130-133. 
 
 221 Laws Governing Primary Elections, Florida, 1909, (Tallahassee, 
 1909), p. 9. 
 
 222 Election Law of Indiana, 1909, (Indianapolis, 1910), p. 111. 
 
 223 General Laws, Special Session of 1912, Minnesota, (Minneapolis, 
 1912), p. 34. 
 
 224 Supplement to an Act to Regulate Elections, New Jersey, (Trenton, 
 1911), pp. 6, 20. 
 
 225 Wisconsin Corrupt Practices Law, 1911, (Madison, 1912), p. 16. 
 
 226 Supplement to an Act to Regulate Elections, New Jersey, (Trenton, 
 1911), pp. '9, 10. 
 
 227 A candidate for Congress in one of the Iowa districts reported in 
 1910 without giving dates or names of the contributors, "Miscellaneous 
 small contributions, $295"; and as expenditures, without giving date or 
 names of persons to whom the payments were made, "Advertising, $171.50. 
 Buttons, $130." 
 
 Another candidate reported expenditures as follows: — "7/15/10 — 
 11/8/10 — Sundry persons — E. E. Fare, Livery, etc. $105." 
 Another candidate for Congress reported: — 
 ' ' June 7 to Nov. 8 — 
 
 Eailroad, sleeping car and auto fares . . . $362. 
 
 Hotel bills $345. 
 
 Newspaper subscriptions and advertising, photos, 
 
 cuts, printing, and postage and incidentals $1992.75 
 Subscription to Eepublican Congressional Cam- 
 paign Committee $3000.00." 
 
 Of the statements of the Congressional candidates examined only two 
 Teported contributions from the Eepublican National Committee — one re- 
 porting a contribution of $500, the other of $1000. 
 
 A candidate for Eailroad Commissioner reported as part of his expend- 
 itures $25 paid for a suit of clothes lost on a bet — seemingly forgetting 
 Iowa's law against betting. The following explanation is added: "I in-
 
 CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION 125 
 
 elude the suit of clothes as I think that if I had not been a candidate for 
 Railroad Commissioner, I might not have gotten into the argument that 
 ended in my betting the suit that X would carry the X district." 
 
 One successful candidate for Congress reported that he had received no 
 contributions, but made no statement regarding his expenditures. 
 
 228 One of these Iowa organizations, disavowing any special political 
 ends, advances as one of their principles that ' ' we pledge ourselves that we 
 will vote for no candidate of any party who is opposed to the inviolate 
 rights and the personal freedom guaranteed to the individual citizen by the 
 constitution." — See Declaration of Principles and Platform of the German- 
 American Liberal Citizens League of Iowa, adopted by the State Convention 
 at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, February 1, 1910, p. 2. 
 
 229 An example of this would be the money which it is said was ex- 
 pended by local representatives of the railroads in the Iowa State campaign 
 of 1910. 
 
 230 General Laws, Special Session of 1912, Minnesota, (Minneapolis, 
 1912), pp. 23-26. 
 
 The act providing for Federal control of newspapers passed during the 
 1911-1912 session of Congress, requiring a newspaper to publish a sworn 
 statement as to their owners, creditors, and officers, and to label as adver- 
 tisements any paid matter appearing in their editorial or news columns, may 
 make State legislation unnecessary along these lines. 
 
 231 Statutes Belating to Elections, Oregon, (Salem, 1911), pp. 179, 180. 
 
 232 Wisconsin Corrupt Practices Law, 1911, (Madison. 1912), pp. 13-16.
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 ) 000 870 851 3