Money in Politics: A Case Study from 1948

Jennifer Burns is Assistant Professor of History at the University of Virginia.

Money in Politics: A Case Study from 1948

Friday, 22 January 2010 07:02

My reading of Robert Caro’s monumental three volume biography of Lyndon Baines Johnson has taken on new relevance in light of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance. In Means of Ascent (The Years of Lyndon Johnson, Volume 2) Caro tells the story of how LBJ stole the 1948 election that brought him to Congress: with corporate cash.

LBJ was a little known congressman facing Coke Stevenson, a tremendously popular former governor known as “Mr. Texas.” Most political experts thought LBJ didn’t stand a chance. They were right; or they would have been right had this election not marked the transition into an entirely new era in American politics, as Caro argues. What the experts didn’t know about was the enormous reserves of cash Johnson had at his disposal from a variety of large corporations who had appreciated his responsiveness as a Congressman, and could only imagine what he could accomplish for them as a Senator. Not only did Johnson flood the airwaves with advertising and travel to campaign stops via helicopter, at the time an astonishing move, but he used campaign contributions to literally buy votes and stuff ballot boxes. Even so, his opponent was popular enough that Johnson could only muster an 87-vote victory. Yes, he was mocked as “landslide Lyndon” when he entered Congress, but it didn’t take long for LBJ to make the most of his opportunities and emerge as a powerful Congressman who would later ascend to the Presidency.

The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down limits on corporate campaign donations suggests that we will see a lot more elections like this one, where unlimited spending perverts democracy and thwarts the will of the people.

Those who love liberty ought to ask: should corporations and organizations be granted the same rights and liberties as persons? How much liberty will we have when our elected representatives can be purchased outright?

Those who want to read more about the history of money in politics might start with Means of Ascent (The Years of Lyndon Johnson, Volume 2) .

Comments (17)

|2010-01-22 16:18:46 Paul R

If freedom of speech and freedom of association are both constitutionally protected, how can speaking in association not be protected? How can one right nullify another?

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) has said "Before long there will not be any longer the senator from Nebraska or the senator from Wyoming. There will be the senator from GE and the senator from Exxon." But I do not recognize a senator from ACORN or a senator from the SEIU as morally superior. If the country is to be ruled by pressure-group warfare then let all the pressure groups fight it out fair.

|2010-01-23 16:09:04 Joseph McHugh

How can corporate contributions thwart the will of the people if people have the right to vote?

Corporations are a collection of people who have the complete right to give their money to whomever they see fit.

If I and my associates want to give our money to someone, who are you to stop me?

If the government is doling out favors to certain groups, then it is the favors that are wrong, not the money.

Especially in these anti-Capiltalist times corporations certainly need to work hard to defend themselves from predatory moochers.

Government should be circumscribed to such an extent that no one can receive any favors. (Favors are just a transfer of wealth from one group to another,or, the taking of an individual's personal choice and giving it over to a bureaucrat.)

Jennifer, with all due respect, you are no friend of liberty!

|2010-01-24 11:46:56 CT Lostaglia

Maybe the professor can fill people in on the constitutional amendment and consequential supreme court rulings that decided corporations would be given "individual" status and how that means McCain Feingold was clearly an infringement on their constitutionally protected rights. All the supreme court did last week was do their job: adhere to the constitution and strike down any law which contradicts it. Pretty simple really.

|2010-01-26 16:21:54 Jennifer Burns - response

What about the distinction between individualism and collectivism? Is a group of individuals, a collective, the same as the lone individual? I think the conversation about “is a corporation a person” is one we ought to be having. As for the lack of proof that money affects politics, the exact equation may not fit into the model of any political scientist, but reading deeply researched accounts of American political history like Caro’s makes it impossible to ignore the reality that money can buy votes, both directly and indirectly. And yes, union money can buy votes too; given the rapid eclipse of labor in the last 40 years, it may be their only way to exercise influence in the future. I don’t think this is a partisan issue and I think that libertarians, traditionally not beholden to our tired divisions of left/right, Republican and Democrat, should be among the first to notice that.

-Jennifer Burns

|2010-01-27 17:36:40 Paul R - Collectivism

True, a corporation is not a person. But...

A collective is not merely a group of individuals. Where collectivism goes wrong as a theory is its reification of the group as a new entity whose welfare is considered as separate, more real or more important than any individual comprising it. It is the hierarchical priority of the group over the individual that leads to poisonous and destructive consequences.

A corporation is an instrument that makes it possible to conduct business without having to draw up contracts acknowledging each individual involved with the business. Whenever a corporation acts or speaks, it is still the action of one or more individuals and not that of some novel and foreign element which came into existence upon incorporation. It is not possible to restrict a corporation's actions without restricting individual's liberties.

|2010-02-01 03:33:38 Patrick Manley - Supreme Court Decision

Jennifer,

The Supreme Court decision is actually a boost for freedom. Why shouldn't a corporation as well as an individual support the candidate of choice?

I believe your premise is flawed. Lyndon Johnson did not win because of unlimited corporate donations. He won because he was corrupt and cheated. He would have found a way to stuff the ballot boxes regardless of the origin of the political contributions.

|2010-02-01 12:31:38 David C - 14th Amendment

According to rulings on the 14th Amendment by the United States Supreme Court, a corporation is considered a "person" and deserves equal protection under the law and has all the rights of a human person. This recent Supreme Court decision is the end logic of this flawed interpretation.

|2010-03-13 13:11:20 Max Tollens Jr. - LBJ-Landslide Lyndon

It wasn't just money that earned Landslide's victory but that ballot boxes "disappeared" and some 202 voters in a precinct mysteriously voted in alphabetical order; it was later discovered that the names were of deceased people. Stevenson took the matter to court where Johnson prevailed, thus winning the 1948 runoff. The financial backers weren't enough for Johnson as he had to resort to stealing the election from Stevenson.

|2010-03-13 15:26:47 Tamny , T . D . - " Money In Politics " { 1 9 4 8 }

Admirers of ' McCAIN - FEINGOLD , like the authors of the bill , disregard the obvious UNCONSTITUTIONALITY of the B . C . R . A .
{ Bi - Partisan Campaign Reform Act } . McCain - Feingold was un - constitutional when Congress - - predominantly DEMOCRATS - - voted their approval ; when President BUSH ' 4 3 ' reluctantly signed it { purportedly to appease Senator McCain , the other prospective Republican Presidential nominee in 2 0 0 0 } ; and , most regrettably , when the SUPREME COURT upheld McCain - Feingold in McCONNELL VS . FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION .

The decisive vote in the McCONNELL case came from SANDRA DAY O ' CONNER , also the swing vote in another deplorable Supreme Court decision , KELO VS . NEW LONDON . Thankfully , Justice O ' Conner has since retired .

The reaction of President Obama and Congressional Democrats to the CITIZENS UNITED decision hardly enhances their prestige . Placing shackles on CORPORATIONS and LABOR UNIONS during ELECTION CAMPAIGNS is simp...

|2010-03-14 12:15:01 Alan - The case for federal activism invites money

In as long as we insist government interfere on our behalf will there be the influence of money in politics. This comes from the inability of society to educate itself and organize normally. The refusal to act as the civilized society we think we are. When we break ourselves down into interest groups and compel government to act against another group in society, that put upon group will respond in kind as an interest group. This has been the repeated cycle for decades going on a century anyway of American politics. The proliferation of money in politics will continue for as long as people are mistrustful of each other and for as long as people resist the responsibility to act for themselves.

|2010-03-15 10:59:44 Jack

If Government ONLY effected individuals, I could see the logic of banning the money & corporate (& union etc) influence into politics (elections). However, our Government (now) hardly limits it's decisions to individuals. It now mandates millions! of individual regulations & laws directed to corporations. From the EPA to minimum wage laws (Fed & state). Gov has become more anti-capitalistic by moving away from just enforcing free commerce laws (restraint of trade, free trade, patents, private property & intellectual prop laws etc) toward micromanaging business. (anti-freedom collectivism). Why shouldn't these entities (businesses & groups) be able to "speak" (broadcast to, influence) voters so the voters are informed as to what's happening in Washington? How is LESS speech ever good?

Money is neither "good" or "bad" of itself. Could I change who you voted for next time by giving you some cash? If we do lose our collective morality, we'll lose our country....

|2010-04-05 15:36:19 Chris Grieb - Correction

Justice O'Connor voted correctly in Kelo. She wrote a very strong dissent.

|2010-11-27 18:07:11 Robert Simmons - Money and elections

If money is only 'speech' how do you feel about those who go out and 'buy' as many votes as they can? The tradition of 'buying' the votes of 'winos' and the poor goes back as far as elections. It wasn't right then. It isn't right now. The unfettered right of secret corporate contributions to candidates is no different than 'buying' votes, since we see that in our society, money equals votes. This is what has to change. Corporations are not individuals no matter what sophistry is used to make us think they are.

|2010-11-28 06:56:26 Alan

For every buyer there is a seller. If the buyer decides their one precious possession, their vote, is for sale, then they are more the villain than the buyer. We saw in the health care mess last year how certain politicians of assumed virtue auctioned off their votes in exchange for money. While neither party is innocent in this arrangement, it does take a seller to put up a “for sale” sign to attract a buyer. We see this same prostitution of values in general elections where voters are willingly and naively to sell their votes on the unsubstantiated promise of goodies. Corporations have become central in these debates because they have been drawn into the political process. By government’s intrusion into private enterprise is private enterprise therefore compelled to reciprocate by participating as it does in the process which has committed this intrusion. If the presence of corporations in politics offends people they ought not to create invitations to these organizations. Althoug...

|2010-11-28 06:57:34 Alan - For every buyer a seller (continued...)

Although, it is not impossible certain parties manufacture this situation in order to sell their votes to these same organizations. It is a contrived act which people ought to be smart enough to see through.

|2010-11-28 08:13:29 Anonymous

'Seeing through' something is not the same as being able to do anything about it. The levers of control are no longer, if they ever were, in the hands of the voting populations. Voting has become a merely symbolic act designed to encourage acquiescence to the de facto system. The United States is so far from any semblance of even a 'representative democracy' as to be risible. We have become an oligarchic
fascistic state manipulated by media and a corrupt cynical ruling class. "Support our Wehrmacht."