Political Fund Raising and the Small Contributor

Abstract

IN RECENT YEARS the increasing costs of American political campaigns consequent upon the growth of the mass media of communication have focused attention on the financial aspects of party activity. A University of North Carolina study' estimated that the cost of nominating and electing all public officials in 1952 was approximately $140,000,000. It seems likely that the comparable figure for 1956 will approach $200,000,000. We now know with fair accuracy how this money is spent and we also know that much of it is raised in contributions or $100 or more. For instance, the same study estimated that in 1952 the Democrats raised 81 per cent of their funds in this way while such contributions accounted for 88 per cent of the Republican total.2 The phenomenon of sums of such magnitude being expended on so important a part of the political process is obviously deserving of the closest study. To date, however, students of government have almost completely ignored the 12 to 19 per cent of the parties' war chests which comes from small contributions. Concern over the size of party treasuries together with perhaps excessive anxiety over the dangers inherent in very large contributions, has led to two recommendations for reform of this traditional reliance on large contributions. One proposal is substantially some kind of governmental subsidy to the parties. Other people have urged the parties to undertake a really serious effort to broaden the base of their financial support. It is, of course, possible to combine these two proposals through the medium of permitting tax deductions or credits for political contributions. It is ironic, however, that the suggestion that the parties appeal for smaller contributions from greater numbers of people is put forward before we have discovered whether significant numbers of them will in fact heed such appeals. That political leaders have historically relied on large contributors for party funds is well known. What is not know, however, is whether this reliance is born of the knowledge that small contributions will not in general aggregate significant sums, or whether it is merely a product of an era in which expenses were not so large as to compel other sources to be explored. There is simply nothing in the literature of political science that gives any indication of the response to be expected from a really serious