² See the writer's Money in Elections, pp. 161–164.

³ From 16 to 10 per cent. See “Campaign Funds in a Depression Year,” in this Review, Vol. 27 (Oct., 1933), pp. 776–778Google Scholar.

⁴ United States, Congress, Senate, Special Committee to Investigate Campaign Expenditures of Presidential, Vice-Presidential, and Senatorial Candidates in 1936, Investigation of Campaign Expenditures in 1936, Report, March 4, 1937 (75th Cong., 1st sess., Sen. Rep. 151). Hereafter this will be cited as Lonergan Report.

⁵ Note, for example, its disposition of the charges that W.P.A. workers were coerced in Pennsylvania (Report, pp. 14–15), and that advertising in the Book of the Democratic Convention was in violation of the Corrupt Practices Act (Report, pp. 18–19).

⁶ Report, p. 136.

⁷ See “Campaign Funds in a Depression Year,” op. cit.

⁸ This is exclusive of loans repaid or contributions to other organizations.

⁹ The figures are as follows: 1934, Democrats, $303,756, Republicans, $216,676; 1935, Democrats, $385,974, Republicans, $159,977.

¹⁰ The cost per vote in 1932 was $.13, and $.19 to $.20 in other recent campaigns. In 1936, the vote of Democrats and Eepublicans was 44,156,256, the combined expenditures $14,087,713.

¹¹ These figures are based upon the total expenditures of the National Committee. For figures for previous campaigns, see the writer's Money in Elections, pp. 75–76.

¹² In 1932, the Democrats spent $343,415, or more than 17 per cent of their fund, for this purpose; the Republicans spent $551,972, or more than 20 per cent.

¹³ The figure for the total expenditure for broadcasting was furnished by C. B. Goodspeed, treasurer of the Committee. In the Committee's report of unpaid bills, the names of the firms to which the amounts were owed are given, but not the purposes for which the bills were contracted. It is not always possible to identify broadcasting expenditures by the names of the concerns, as much of the radio time in 1936 was bought from advertising agencies which handle other kinds of publicity as well.

¹⁴ These figures were compiled from the reports filed by these organizations in the office of the clerk of the House, and cover the calendar year 1936. They do not agree in all cases with those appearing in the Lonergan, Report, p. 26Google Scholar, because the committee used the period June to December, 1936.

¹⁵ This information was furnished by Mr. J. Stephen Flynn, who was immediately in charge of this part of the campaign.

¹⁶ According to Mr. Flynn: “No compilation of the number of individual subscribers was ever made, and frankly it would be an impossible task to attempt to dig the information out of the files.” (Letter dated March 15, 1937.)

¹⁷ All collections by the national committees, whether for themselves or as agents of other independent agencies, are included in this table. Republican receipts include collections made by the Finance Committee of Pennsylvania, Nassau County United Republican Finance Committee, and other similar groups, which were turned over to the National Committeee in lump sums.

¹⁸ The writer is indebted to Mrs. Mary C. Salisbury, the very able comptroller of the Democratic National Committee, for this information.

¹⁹ Lonergan, Report, pp. 18–19Google Scholar.

²⁰ Both advertising and sales were on a percentage basis. Over $180,000 was spent in commissions on sales alone.

²¹ This information was obtained from Mr. Hodgkins, immediately in charge of arranging these dinners, through Mrs. Salisbury.

²² If 5,000 communities participated in the Nominator collections and the average number of individuals contributing in each community was 20 (which would seem a very conservative estimate), the total would be 100,000. Allowing another 100,000 for Jackson Day dinners, 50,000 for organized labor, and adding the 54,000 regular contributors, gives 304,000.

²³ Letter from C. A. Goodspeed, treasurer, dated March 22, 1937.

²⁴ The writer's count checks closely with that of the Lonergan Committee, which included the period June 1 to December 31 only. The figures used here are for the calendar year 1936. It is possible that the difference between these figures and those of the Republican Committee is in part explained by the fact that where the same individual bought a number of participation certificates the writer treated it as a single contribution, whereas the Committee may have counted each of these separately.

²⁵ This is the figure obtained by counting the number of contributors listed in the 1928 reports. It checks very closely with the 143,452 which Mr. Goodspeed uses in a table published in the Republican leaflet “On the March,” October 17, 1936. He gives the figure 22,287 for 1932, however, while the writer's count was 39,950.

²⁶ This table includes all cash contributions received during the calendar year. It should be noted that in the case of the Democrats it does not include contributions collected by the Roosevelt Nominators division. In preparing this table, a card index was made of all contributions of $100 or more and the numerous cases where one individual gave several contributions at different dates traced. The numbers given, therefore, represent contributors and not contributions. Collections made by clubs or committees and turned over to the national committees in lump sums are listed as “Impossible to allocate.” Many such collections were made by the Nassau County United Republican Finance Committee and similar organizations in the case of the Republicans. These collections were separately accounted for and appear in the reports of the National Committee in lump sums only.

²⁷ The percentages are as follows: 1912, 28.7; 1916, 27.9; 1920, 22.1; 1924, 18.0; 1928, 12.5; and 1932, 16.0.

²⁸ The percentages for contributions of $5,000 or more are as follows: 1912, 33.3; 1916, 34.4; 1920, 26.2; 1924, 45.2; 1928, 52.7; 1932, 43.7.

²⁹ The percentages are as follows: 1916, 15.1; 1920, 15.3; 1924, 11.1; 1928, 8.2; 1932, 9.1.

³⁰ The percentages are: 1912, 44.8; 1916, 41.4; 1920, 0.1; 1928, 45.8; 1932, 40.1.

³¹ The percentages are: 1916, 39.9; 1920, 80.2; 1924, 58.7; 1928, 44.5; 1932, 48.2; 1936, 50.7.

³² The percentages are as follows: 1928, Democrats, 25.3 and Republicans 28.2; 1932, Democrats, 24.2 and Republicans 20.5.

³³ In 1932, the contributions of $1,000 or more to the Republican National Committee totaled $335,605.

³⁴ In identifying the interests of contributors, Who's Who in America, Poor's Register of Directors of Corporations, and the directories and telephone books of various cities were used. Unfortunately, both the Chicago and New York directories were sadly out-of-date. Under “Organized labor” are included all contributions from this source. Speaking strictly, these are not “Contributions of $1,000 or more,” since each contribution represented the gifts of many individuals.

³⁵ Contributions from manufacturers made up 26.3 per cent of all contributions of $1,000 or more in that year.

³⁶ In 1932, they received $130,950 from this group, representing 10.5 per cent of all contributions of $1,000 or more.

³⁷ Members of Weirton Steel contributed only $6,500 during the campaign. It should be remembered, however, that the Weirs had contributed $10,000 in 1935 and that in December. 1936. E. T. Weir lent the National Committee $45,000.

³⁸ The total du Pont contributions to the campaign were much larger than this.

³⁹ The largest of the Texas contributions was from Freeman W. Burford, president of the East Texas Refining Co., $12,500; the total from Texas oil men was $24,750.

⁴⁰ It was difficult to classify the members of the Rockefeller family. Although most of their money was made in Standard Oil, neither John D. nor John D., Jr., is now associated with the management of that concern nor, indeed, is a director of any corporation except philanthropic foundations. John D. was classified with the oil group since he was identified with oil during his active business career; John D., Jr., however, was included under “Other classifications.”

⁴¹ In classifying contributors, every effort was made to exclude from this group those members of the legal profession who were actively identified with corporations and to confine it to those who were engaged in general legal practice.

⁴² Figures, except where otherwise indicated, are taken from the records and cover the calendar year 1936. They differ but slightly from those in the Lonergan, Report, pp. 127–128Google Scholar.

⁴³ A complete list of the labor organizations and their contributions appears in the Lonergan, Report, pp. 128–133Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Robert W. Bingham, Joseph E. Davies, Bert Fish, Mrs. H. H. Sevier, and Lawrence Steinhardt. Many others contributed less than $10,000.

⁴⁵ This table includes all contributions of $10,000 or more to either national committee in 1936 and all contributors whose total contributions to the campaign amounted to $50,000 or more. A few others have been included because of their close relationship to large contributors. Democratic gifts to the Nominators division and the Book, as well as regular cash contributions, are included. In preparing this list, the index of contributors used in Table IV was checked against the figures given in the Lonergan Report. In the case of the Republicans, there were a number of differences, some because the Lonergan figures for contributions to the national party include gifts made through the Nassau County United Republican Finance Committee, the Finance Committee of Pennsylvania, and other similar groups the funds of which were not allocated in Table IV. Other differences were due, no doubt, to the condition of the Republican reports. Cases of disagreement were checked and the figure appearing here under contributions to the National Committee is the one which the investigator believed most likely to be correct. Figures in this column taken from the Lonergan Report are followed by the letter L. The entire list of contributions from other organizations is from the Lonergan, Report, pp. 42–126Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ The Lonergan Report lists in detail the organizations to which these contributions were made, bringing out even more clearly the extent to which the practice of “splitting” contributions was resorted to.

⁴⁷ This includes not only regular cash contributions but all collections by the Nominators as well.

⁴⁸ These figures are from the supplementary report filed February 1, 1937.

⁴⁹ As reported in the New York Times, October 17, 1936.

⁵⁰ There is a possibility that Congress may prohibit contributions by labor organizations, as recommended by the Lonergan Committee (Report, p. 135), thus seriously handicapping the Democratic party. Such action seems unlikely, however, from a body including so many labor sympathizers. The issues raised by this proposal are too far-reaching to be discussed here.