Political machines

Political machines were party organizations headed by powerful individuals or groups that controlled politics in many cities and counties from the late eighteenth century until well into the twentieth century. While many of the bosses that ran the best-known political machines were Democrats, political bosses in the United State have been both Democratic and Republican, and some have even been bipartisan. The Prohibition era (1919–33) was the heyday of both Democratic and Republican political machines because it allowed political power and corruption to work hand in hand. The most powerful political machines have been associated with cities with large immigrant populations. In cities such as New York, politicians helped immigrants learn to navigate life in the United States and provided financial and social support to the urban poor. The machines also used political patronage to generate loyalty. The machines were repaid for their efforts when voters supported their candidates on Election Day, allowing the machine to maintain its control. In rural areas, tight-knit political organizations, rather than political machines, generally controlled politics.

Background

That political bosses practiced graft was taken for granted in the heyday of political machines. George Washington Plunkitt (1842–1924) of New York’s Tammany Hall, the most notorious of political machines, coined the term “honest graft” to explain the difference between the actions of political machines and ordinary criminals. Political machines made money by padding payrolls, inflating the costs of contracts, and helping themselves to organizational funds. However, most political bosses tended to view themselves as serving the interests of the organization and the city above their own self interests.

The epitome of the political machine, Tammany Hall exercised significant power over New York City politics. The Democratic-Republican fraternal society was established in 1788, becoming a political machine by 1800 to check the powers of the Federalist Party in the early days of American government. For much of its history, Tammany Hall was tightly controlled by William “Boss” Tweed (1823–78), and it became known for its corrupt activities. Tammany Hall was adept at promoting loyal members to positions of power. Al Smith (1873–1944), for instance, rose from serving as a clerk to becoming a four-term governor of New York and a presidential candidate in 1928. Tammany Hall owed much of its power to Irish immigrants and the urban poor because machine officials were always available with cash to pay the rent, lawyers to help someone in trouble, and patronage jobs for the unemployed. Under the administration of Republican mayor Fiorello La Guardia (1934–46), Tammany Hall lost significant power, but it continued to exert political power in New York City until the early 1960s.

In New Jersey, the best-known political bosses were Frank Hague (1876–1956) in Jersey City and Enoch “Nucky” Johnson (1883–1968) in Atlantic City. Johnson, a Republican, was convicted of tax evasion charges in 1941 and served four years in a federal penitentiary. The prison term broke his hold on his political machine. The control that Hague exerted as the Democratic mayor of Jersey City from 1917 to 1947 is considered unparalleled among political bosses. When he lost his political position, Hague burned all of his papers to ensure that no record of his misdeeds remained.

In a 1930 study of political bosses of the day, City Bosses in the United States: A Study of Twenty Municipal Bosses, Harold Zink determined that they were all unique, making it impossible to describe a “typical” political boss. In addition to Tammany Hall and the Hague and Johnson machines, some of the best-known political machines were run by Dan O’Connell (Albany), Edward Butler (St. Louis), Richard J. Daley and Roger C. Sullivan (Chicago), “Czar” Martin Lomasney (Boston), Israel W. Durham and Edwin H. Vare (Philadelphia), Christopher Lyman Magee and William Flinn (Pittsburgh), George B. Cox (Cincinnati), Martin Behrman (New Orleans), Ed Crump (Memphis), Albert A. Ames (Minneapolis), and Abraham Ruef (San Francisco).

Political Machines Today

The power of political machines gradually declined in response to events such as changes in immigration laws, which reduced the number of European immigrants to the United States, and the American social welfare state, which established federal and state programs to help the poor. Likewise, political primaries replaced party-controlled caucuses in most states; the civil service, after its establishment, removed scores of patronage jobs that had traditionally been awarded on the basis of party loyalty; voter machines made it more difficult to “fix” elections; and campaign finance laws placed limits on political campaign contributions. Another significant factor in bringing an end to political machines was a series of anticorruption campaigns that began in the United States during the Great Depression and continued for several decades.

Some scholars contend that powerful interest groups (also called “lobbies”) and political action committees (PACs) have taken on the role held by political machines in the early-to-mid twentieth century, exercising tight control over political power and funding politicians in order to promote their own interests. Ironically, campaign finance laws that were intended to limit outside control over political candidates has allowed some well-funded interest groups to wield power behind the scenes without transparency or accountability. Political talk shows and the Internet have also enabled politicians with narrow interests to generate followings and claim that they speak for the majority, creating a new form of political machine without geographical boundaries.

In a 2014 article for the Atlantic, Jonathan Rauch notes that the government shutdown of fall 2013 echoed the days of political machines by forcing politicians behind closed doors to broker self-interested deals that were presented as compromise. Rauch argues that political machines were much more likely to serve the majority interest, acting through backroom deal cutting, than do modern minority groups such as the Tea Party.

The contemporary trend toward divided government, in which one party controls the White House and the other controls at least one house of Congress, has made it possible for a minority power to block the alleged mandate of a majority party. As a result of legislative inaction, congressional approval ratings, measured by Gallup, were reported at a record-low 9 percent November 2013 and rose to only 13 percent by the following August. Similarly, a December 2013 poll found that a mere 8 percent of Americans considered members of Congress highly honest and ethical. Such broad disapproval and distrust suggests that political machines may have been more efficient at wielding political power than the political organizations of the twenty-first century.

In 2010, a hallmark ruling was issued by the US Supreme Court. This was Citizens United versus the Federal Elections Commission. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that corporations equated to individual citizens and had similar rights, such as freedom speech. Furthermore, the Supreme Court maintained that campaign contributions were itself a form of free speech. Therefore, corporations and other organizations such as unions could donate unlimited funds toward political campaigns. The primary stipulation was that a donation would not go directly to the candidate but to an independent outside group such as a Political Action Committee (PAC).

By the 2024 presidential election, this environment had evolved to where wealthy donors could have an outsized impact on federal elections and the composition of the US government. The 50 biggest donors in the 2024 elections had contributed more than $2 billion to influence the outcome. Republican-leaning donors accounted for $1.4 billion of these types of contributions.

Technology entrepreneur Elon Musk achieved much attention for his $75 million in reported contributions to Republican candidate Donald Trump. However, this total was surpassed by at least five others in their donations to the Republican party. The largest reported donor for Democratic candidates was former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg at $43.7 million.

Bibliography

Cook, Fred J. American Political Bosses and Machines. Watts, 1973.

Erie, Steven P. Rainbow’s End: Irish-Americans and the Dilemmas of Urban Machine Politics, 1850–1985. 1988. University of California Press, 1990.

Fox, Cybelle. Three Worlds of Relief: Race, Immigration, and the American Welfare State, from the Progressive Era to the New Deal. Princeton University Press, 2012.

Golway, Terry. Machine Made: Tammany Hall and the Creation of Modern American Politics. Norton/Liveright, 2014.

Hart, Steven. American Dictators: Frank Hague, Nucky Johnson, and the Performance of the Urban Political Machine. Rutgers University Press, 2013.

Morse, Clara Ence, et al. "Meet the Megadonors Pumping Millions into the 2024 Election." Washington Post, 16 Oct. 2024, www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2024/biggest-campaign-donors-election-2024. Accessed 24 Oct. 2024.

Lau, Emily. "What Is ‘Dark Money’ Political Spending, and How Does It Affect US Politics?" The Conversation, 25 Sept. 2024, theconversation.com/what-is-dark-money-political-spending-and-how-does-it-affect-us-politics-236294. Accessed 24 Oct. 2024.

Lau, Tim. "Citizens United Explained." Brennan Center for Justice, 12 Dec. 2019, www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained. Accessed 24 Oct. 2024.

Morris, Dick. Off with Their Heads: Traitors, Crooks, and Obstructionists in American Politics, Media, and Business. Regan, 2003.

Rauch, Jonathan. “The Case for Corruption.” Atlantic, Mar. 2014, pp. 19–22.

Trounstine, Jessica. Political Monopolies in American Cities: The Rise and Fall of Bosses and Reformers. University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Welch, Richard F. King of the Bowery: Big Tim Sullivan, Tammany Hall, and New York City from the Gilded Age to the Progressive Era. Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 2008.

Zink, Harold. City Bosses in the United States: A Study of Twenty Municipal Bosses. Duke University Press, 1930.