of $400, be able to reach every registered voter of his party in the entire state. In addition to that $400 he may spend $750, or 15 per cent of one year's salary, in any other manner he may choose, not in violation of the corrupt-practices act. A candidate may purchase space in the advertising columns of a newspaper, but in order that this paid advertising shall not be mistaken for news, the law requires that all paid articles be marked as such. The law expressly provides that none of its provisions shall be construed as relating to the rendering of services by speakers, writers, publishers, or others for which no compensation is asked or given; nor to prohibit expenditure by committees of political parties or organizations for public speakers, music, halls, lights, literature, advertising, office rent, printing, postage, clerk hire, challengers or watchers at the polls, traveling expenses, telegraphing or telephoning, or the making of poll lists. The successful nominee in the primary may spend in his general campaign 10 per cent of one year's salary, this expenditure, in the case of a candidate for governor, being $500. In addition to this 10 per cent of a year's salary he may contribute toward the payment for his party's statement in the publicity pamphlet to be mailed by the Secretary of State to every registered voter. In the publicity pamphlet for the general campaign each party may use not to exceed twenty-four pages, at $50 per page, making the total cost to the party committee $1200, or about $100 for each candidate. The candidate is therefore limited to an expenditure of $600 in his general campaign, only $100 of which is necessary in order to enable him to reach every registered voter. He could reach every registered voter in his party in the primary campaign for $400. Under no other system could a candidate reach all the voters in two campaigns at a total cost of $500. IMPROPER ACTS PROHIBITED The Oregon corrupt-practices act encourages and aids publicity, but prohibits the excessive or improper use of money or other agencies for the subversion of clean elections. Among the acts which are prohibited I may mention these: Promises of appointments in return for political support. Solicitation or acceptance of campaign contributions from or payment of contributions by persons holding appointive positions. Publication or distribution of anonymous letters or circulars regarding candidates or measures before the people. Sale of editorial support or the publication of paid political advertising without marking it "paid advertising." Use of carriages in conveying voters to the polls. Active electioneering or soliciting votes on election day. Campaign contributions by quasi-public or certain other important classes of corporations generally affected by legislation. Intimidation or coercion of voters in any manner. Soliciting candidates to subscribe to religious, charitable, public, and semipublic enterprises; but this does not prohibit regular payments to any organization of which the candidate has been a member, or to which he has been a contributor for more than six months before his candidacy. Contribution of funds in the name of any other than the person furnishing the money. Treating by candidates as a means of winning favor. Payment or promise to reward another for the purpose of inducing him to become or refrain from becoming or cease being a candidate, or solicitation of such consideration. Betting on an election by a candidate, or betting on an election by any other person, with intent to influence the result. Attempting to vote in the name of another person, living, dead, or fictitious. PUBLICITY OF CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES There is no interference with such legitimate acts as tend to secure full publicity and free expression of opinion. Personal and political liberty is in no way infringed upon, the only purpose being to prohibit the excessive use of money, promises of appointment, or deception and fraud. The corrupt-practices act requires that every candidate shall file an itemized statement of his campaign expenditures within fifteen days after the primary election, including in such statement not only all amounts expended, but all debts incurred or unfulfilled promises made. Every political committee must have a treasurer, and cause him to keep a detailed account of its receipts, payments, and liabilities. Any committee or agent or representative of a candidate must file an itemized statement of receipts and expenditures within ten days after the election. The books of account of any treasurer of any political party, committee, or organization during an election campaign 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 district. Failure to file statements as required by law is punishable by fine. The candidate violating any section of the corrupt-practices act forfeits his right to the office. Any other person violating any section of this act is punished by imprisonment of not more than one year in the county jail or a fine of not more than $5000, or both. The candidate is also subject to the same penalties. THE RECALL The final step in the establishment of popular government in Oregon was the adoption of the recall amendment to the constitution, which was adopted in 1908 by a vote of 58,381 to 31,002. Under this amendment any public officer may be recalled by the filing of a petition signed by 25 per cent of the number of electors who voted in his district in the preceding election. The petition must set forth the reasons for the recall, and if the officer does not resign within five days after the petition is filed, a special election must be ordered to be held within twenty days to determine whether the people will recall such officer. On the ballot at such election the reasons for demanding the recall of said officer may be set forth in not more than two hundred words. His justification of his course in office may be set forth in a like number of words. He retains his office until the results of the special election have been officially declared. No petition can be circulated against any officer until he has held office six months, except that in the case of a member of the state legislature it may be filed at any time after five days from the beginning of the first session after his election. At the special election the candidate receiving the highest number of votes is declared elected. The special election is held at public expense, but a second recall petition cannot be filed against an officer unless the petitioners first pay the entire expense of the first recall election. THE BEST SYSTEM OF POPULAR GOVERNMENT Mr. President, I reiterate that Oregon has evolved the best system of popular government that exists in the world to-day. The Australian ballot assures the honesty of elections. The registration law guards the integrity of the privilege of American citizenship, participation in government. The direct primary absolutely insures popular selection of all candidates and establishes the responsibility of the public servant to the electorate and not to any political boss or special interest. The initiative and referendum is the keystone of the arch of popular government, for by means of this the people may accomplish such other reforms as they desire. The initiative develops the electorate because it encourages study of principles and policies of government, and affords the originator of new ideas in government an opportunity to secure popular judgment upon his measures if 8 per cent of the voters of his state deem the same worthy of submission to popular vote. The referendum prevents misuse of the power temporarily centralized in the legislature. The corrupt-practices act is necessary as a complement to the initiative and referendum and the direct primary, for without the corrupt-practices act these other features of popular government could be abused. As I have fully explained, the publicity pamphlet provided for by the corruptpractices act affords all candidates for nomination or election equal means of presenting before the voter their views upon public questions, and protects the honest candidate against the misuse of money in political campaigns. Under the operation of this law popular verdicts will be based upon ideas, not money; argument, not abuse; principles, not boss or machine dictation. The recall, to my mind, is rather an admonitory or precautionary measure, the existence of which will prevent the necessity for its use. At rare intervals there may be occasion for exercise of the recall against municipal or county officers, but I believe the fact of its existence will prevent need for its use against the higher officials. It is, however, an essential feature of a complete system of popular government. ABSOLUTE GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE Under the machine and political-boss system the confidence of sincere partisans is often betrayed by recreant leaders in political contests and by public servants who recognize the irresponsible machine instead of the electorate as the source of power to which they are responsible. If the enforcement of the Oregon laws will right these wrongs, then they were conceived in wisdom and born in justice to the people, in justice to the public servant, and in justice to the partisan. Plainly stated, the aim and purpose of the laws is to destroy the irresponsible political machine and to put all elective offices in the state in direct touch with the people as the real source of authority; in short, to give direct and full force to the ballot of every individual elector in Oregon and to eliminate dominance of corporate and corrupt influences in the administration of public affairs. The Oregon laws mark the course that must be pursued before the wrongful use of corporate power can be dethroned, the people restored to power, and lasting reform secured. They insure absolute government by the people. THE INITIATIVE, THE REFERENDUM, AND THE RECALL' BY MARGARET A. SCHAFFNER To make representative government more representative is the problem of to-day. The gradual process of social evolution has changed the industrial basis upon which our political institutions rest, and the increased complexity of our social organization has made the expression of the popular will more difficult. As readjustment to changing conditions is the requisite for any advancing type of life, so political progress becomes impossible unless new agencies are developed, to be retained or discarded as experience may warrant. Among the agencies for political expression few have made more remarkable progress in the history of recent legislation than the initiative, the referendum, and the recall. State-wide referendums for the adoption of state constitutional, and local referendums for local affairs, are familiar institutions in the United States, but it is only within recent years that our states have begun to adopt the initiative and the referendum for state legislation. 1 From American Political Science Review, 1907-1908. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS FOR THE INITIATIVE AND THE REFERENDUM Prior to 1907 a group of states, including South Dakota (1898), Utah (1900), Oregon (1902), Nevada (1904), and Montana (1906), had adopted constitutional provisions. Some of these amendments were imperfectly drawn, and lack of experience as to the practical workings of direct legislation in certain cases led to the omission of essential provisions for securing the results which the amendments contemplated. The amendment for Utah was not made self-executing, and three successive legislatures have refused to provide for its operation. The amendment for Nevada provides only for the referendum, and the details of the plan are so imperfectly drawn that substantial results from the law are as yet "the substance of things hoped for" rather than the evidence of things seen. Among the earlier amendments the South Dakota provision adopted in 1898, and fortified by effective legislation in the following year, has undoubtedly served as the best model for subsequent attempts to secure direct legislation in this country. This amendment is quite closely modeled after the plan so long in successful operation in Switzerland, and although an undue use of the emergency clause has somewhat weakened the efficiency of the system in South Dakota,2 that state has secured fairly satisfactory results from the operation of her law. The lack of provision for bringing initiative measures before the legislature and for securing competing bills has been one of the serious defects of the Oregon law. Oregon voters have too often been placed at the disadvantage of choosing between the acts of groups of extremists, instead of having a choice of measures resulting from the deliberative attempts of men to find some common basis for legislative action. Prior to the legislation of 1907 the Oregon system also suffered from the lack of publicity for proposed measures. This defect is largely overcome by the new law (1907, Chapter 226), which makes elaborate provision for the publication and distribution of initiative bills and of arguments to be submitted to the voters. However, the lack of opportunity for bringing proposed measures before the legislature, and the impossibility of securing the submission of competing bills, lessens the guarantee for careful consideration of proposed legislation and diminishes the voter's opportunity for discrimination and choice. The Montana amendment of 1906 introduced an innovation by requiring that two fifths of the whole number of counties of the state must each furnish the required per cent of signers for the initiative and referendum petitions. This provision will probably make it more difficult to secure the required number of signatures, and 1 South Dakota Constitution (amended 1898), Article 3, Section 1. Utah, Constitution (amended 1900), Article 6, Sections 1 and 22. Oregon, Constitution (amended 1902), Article 4, Section 1. Nevada, Constitution (amended 1904), Article 19, Sections 1 and 2. Montana, Constitution (amended 1906), Article 5, Section 1. 2 See State ex rel. Lavin, et al. vs. Bacon, et al. 1901, 14 S. D. 394 |