A Short Note on the Expenditures of the McKinley Campaign of 1896
2016; Wiley; Volume: 28; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
1741-5705
Autores Tópico(s)Race, History, and American Society
ResumoWhile the presidencies of William McKinley and William Jefferson Clinton seem to have little in common, both may be remembered in the long run for the controversy over expenditures in their respective campaigns. Given over 100 years have passed since McKinley's inauguration and campaign financing is once again of public interest, it is time to reassess the validity of the claims made in regard to McKinley's expenditures and to examine the historiography of this election. One of the most frequently mentioned facets of the campaign is the amount of money alleged to have been raised and spent by William McKinley's campaign manager, the wealthy industrialist Mark Hanna. Many politicians at the time, most notably Illinois Governor John Altgeld and the Democratic nominee William Jennings Bryan, charged Hanna's bottomless well of financing bought the election for McKinley.(1) A closer look at the origins of some of the allegations about Hanna's expenditures cast doubt on the validity of these charges. It may be Hanna raised an unprecedented amount of money for McKinley's campaign in 1896, but the sources discussed in this note (often cited by historians of this campaign) do not sustain these allegations. It has been estimated by the time Hanna was finished, he spent between $3,350,000 and $16,500,000 on the presidential campaign of 1896. Regardless of the specific amount, his expenditures shocked even his Republican contemporaries.(2) While $16,500,000 is the highest figure most commonly mentioned by historians, it is also among the most questionable. The original source for this figure is rarely cited in the historiography. Two of the references found were in John E. Pixton's article Charles G. Dawes and the McKinley Campaign and in Louise Overacker's Money in Elections.(3) Both authors referred to comments made by Congressman Rucker of Missouri printed in the Congressional Record of 1910. Although Overacker noted Rucker's numbers were probably of little value, she did not explain why she believed so, other than to cite later in her book Rucker's account did not agree with the numbers taken from the Clapp Committee of 1912.(4) What both Overacker and Pixton failed to include in their documentation was Rucker was actually referring to information delivered in a speech given before the House of Representatives in 1908 by Congressman William Sulzer (D) of New York. In speech, Sulzer cited figures estimating presidential campaign expenditures from 1860 through 1904. He did not refer to any source, credible or otherwise, for his campaign expenditure estimates. Sulzer went on to say, Of course I do not declare the statement of expenditures which I am about to read is absolutely accurate, but I do say--and a careful investigation, in my opinion will substantiate it--that these expenditures are approximately correct.(5) Sulzer later became governor of New York where, less than a year into his term, he was impeached on grounds that he had misrepresented the expenditures of his campaign funds, had committed perjury, and had suppressed evidence.(6) Prosecutors charged Sulzer failed to report $60,000 in campaign contributions and he committed perjury in regard to the accuracy of his campaign statements. Prosecutors also alleged Sulzer diverted $40,000 in campaign funds for use in the stock market.(7) Sulzer was found guilty by New York State's High Court of Impeachment on three of the eight counts with which he had been charged by a vote of 43 to 12, with 2 abstentions. The most damaging evidence presented against Sulzer at his trial concerned the handling of his campaign contributions. According to Robert Wesser, during his trial, Testimony did show Sulzer had actually demanded some of these monies and, during the Frawley hearings or the impeachment proceedings, urged donors to conceal their contributions.(8) Although none of this information disproves Hanna spent $16,500,000 on the campaign, it is ironic part of the Hanna legend often perpetuated by historians originated from such a dubious source. …
Referência(s)