Harmon’s Histories: 1918 U.S. Senate race warned of excessive campaign spending

By Jim Harmon

There is “a growing national concern about the need to regulate the use of money in political campaigns.”

It could be a headline from today – but it isn’t. It’s from 1918!

Specifically, it’s from the U.S. Senate contest in Michigan between two of the richest men in America: Democrat Henry Ford (auto magnate) and Republican Truman H. Newberry (a rich industrialist).

Money for campaigning and advertising was no problem for either man.

The Newberry camp smeared Ford as a pacifist and an anti-Semite who used “extreme efforts” to keep his son Edsel (remember the car?) from serving in the military (could it have been bone spurs?).

According to U.S. Senate records, on September 17, 1918, “a resolution was introduced ... calling for an investigation into the Michigan primary.”

“The complaint was based on a report filed by Newberry's campaign committee stating that it had received and spent more than $175,000 on the election, far in excess of the $3,750 limit imposed by Michigan law and the Federal Corrupt Practices Act.”

“Then, on January 6, 1919, Henry Ford filed a petition with the Senate, formally contesting the election and asking for a recount. On the day after Newberry assumed his seat, Ford filed a second petition. He again contested the election and charged Newberry with making unlawful expenditures and intimidating voters.”

“The Senate referred the complaint to the Committee on Privileges and Elections and then, on December 3, 1919, adopted a resolution officially calling for an investigation into the election.”

A lot of folks were upset by Newberry’s “blatant spending practices, both in the primary and the general elections.” Even some Republicans advised him to drop out. But he didn’t, and he won the seat.

Newberry was sworn in as a U.S. senator on May 19, 1919, giving Republicans a two-vote majority. Soon after that, “Newberry and 134 campaign associates were indicted and charged with violations of federal and state campaign laws.”

“Despite Newberry's assertions that he knew nothing of illegal contributions and disbursements, a massive array of evidence, gathered by the U.S. Department of Justice with the help of agents financed by Henry Ford, indicated otherwise.”

“Found guilty on March 20, 1920, Newberry appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the conviction by a 5-to-4 ruling on May 2, 1921.”

“On September 29, 1921, the Committee on Privileges and Elections reported that it had carried out a recount of the general election ballots and determined that Truman H. Newberry had been legally elected senator. A majority of the committee also concluded that the charges of fraud and voter intimidation were unfounded.”

However, “a minority report signed by three Democrats contended that Newberry had in fact known about the excessive expenditures and that much of the money had been transferred from his bank accounts. As a result, the minority concluded that, because of the illegal actions of the campaign, the Senate should declare Newberry not elected.”

In late 1921 and early 1922, the Senate reviewed the matter. “Newberry and his defenders told the Senate that he regretted the large expenditures but had known nothing about them and therefore had not testified either at the trial or before the Senate committee.”

“His opponents, however, strongly believed that the vast expenditures could not have occurred without his knowledge.”

“The Senate severely condemned Newberry's excessive expenditures as harmful to the honor and dignity of the Senate but voted, 46 to 41, that he was a duly elected senator from Michigan. The vote divided generally along party lines.”

The Senate condemnation, coupled with the chance Ford would again challenge him, caused Newberry to resign from the Senate in late 1922, “returning to his business in Michigan, where he lived until his death in 1945.”

The case of 100 years ago focused attention on the issue of money in politics. In 1925, the Congress passed the Federal Corrupt Practices Act designed to address “financial irregularities in congressional campaigns.”

But, with the Citizens United case in recent years, the money continues to flow. While there’s a possibility of some respite in TV campaign ads once the election is over, I’m sure it won’t last.

After all, it absolutely requires two solid years of brow-beating commercials to convince me of who and what I should vote for!

The case of Truman Newberry focused national attention on the particular power of the monied candidate.

Here’s wishing for a six-week campaign season, next time around.

Jim Harmon is a longtime Missoula news broadcaster, now retired, who writes a weekly history column for Missoula Current. You can contact Jim at fuzzyfossil187@gmail.com. His best-selling book, “The Sneakin’est Man That Ever Was,” a collection of 46 vignettes of Western Montana history, is available at harmonshistories.com.